There's a little flap right now about a pageant bimbo saying she believes based on her religious convictions that marriage should only be between opposite sex individuals. Pro-gay marriage folks are aghast at her intolerance. Pro-man-woman marriage folks are aghast that people are attacking her "religious" beliefs.
Angry Man is aghast that we care what Miss California thinks. I'm not sure what's more embarrassing: Winning an award because you know how to tape your boobs for maximum lift or taking a pseudonym based on a semi-celebrity known primarily for drunk driving and night-vision porn.
But those aren't the real issue here. Yes, beauty pageants are an affront to women, halfway between pornography and a cattle-market. And, yes, Perez Hilton is an affront to all men, gay or straight.
(Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to judge someone prancing around in a swimsuit. I suspect my judgement and willingness to do so is further proof that pageants are demeaning.)
I'm not angry (today) about gay marriage or the lack of gay marriage. I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. My marriage to a woman should be no more legally valid than your man-man, woman-woman, or flying pig-unicorn marriage. It's just not their business. Marriage should be strictly a social and religious construct with no legal ramifications.
You should, instead, be able to choose one person as your partner for legal purposes. This person would file taxes with you. Would be your emergency contact. Would dispense your estate if no will designated otherwise. You could change this person if you wanted, but there would be a two year waiting period between partners. Insurance should work the same way. Who cares if you're married? Just choose one person to be your "dependent." If you want to change, you wait two years.
I'm angry because people think that opposing opinions are equally valid.
There are no shades of gray. Either gay marriage is right or gay marriage is wrong. Either Christianity is right and Islam is wrong or Christianity is wrong and Islam is right. (It is also possible/likely that Christianity and Islam are both wrong and the Buddhists or atheists win.) Either slavery is right or slavery is wrong.
People who seem otherwise rational are suggesting that it is un-American to attack this women's anti-gay marriage opinion because her opinion is based on religion. They suggest that persecuting her for this opinion is the same as persecuting gay people for wanting to be married.
That's stupid. They're confusing governmental attack and societal attack.
I agree with the First Amendment. The government should be very, very careful about squashing individuals' opinions.
The First Amendment isn't important because opinions are equally right or equally valid or equally important. The First Amendment is important because it's often terribly hard to determine which of two opinions is correct.
Look, in 1850 (or 1950, or even 2009), you could've found thousands of people who held the opinion that people of African descent were less human than people of European descent. This opinion even had basis in religious teachings. Apparently Noah's rocky relationship with his sons, and his alcoholism, led to one son being less honored. The thinking went that each of the three sons begat a race, European, Asian, and African, and the least honored was the forefather of Africans.
Guess what. That's stupid.
Suggesting that an opinion should not be ridiculed because it is religiously based is stupid. If the opinion is wrong, it's wrong no matter the basis.
Some ideas are right. Some are wrong. If ideas are diametrically opposed there are only three possibilities: The first is right, the second is wrong. The first is wrong, the second is right. Or both are wrong.
The final question: Who determines right and wrong?
That's where things get gray.
No comments:
Post a Comment