[I’ve been absent for the last few months, and if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve got at least 200 posts under my belt, I’d be worried that I’d achieved my second greatest fear: becoming this guy.
No apologies, though.]
Today – well, a few days ago – I got linked to this. For those of you who haven’t clicked through, it’s an article describing the opinions of many young people* at a rally to “protect traditional marriage”. Now, the ideas are obviously atrocious; this is plain for all to see. But why is it that none of them can spell or write? I mean, just look at this: Read the rest of this entry
Just putting this out here, with a brief comment.
Aaaaand a hat-tip to Ophelia Benson, of whom I’ve been reading a lot recently.
Quick post – read this as an intro, then dive into this.
The first is an explanation of the crap that Thunderf00t’s been up to by Jen at Blag Hag. The second is just one facet of the consequences of his actions, and a conversation about what his actions say about the atheist movement.
My response to the former:
My response to the latter:
Well, a cross between that and frustration.
Yeah – I have officially lost all respect for Thunderf00t at this point – he sounds like a cackling vaudeville villain by this point.
But it’s OK, because all that respect can now be put in Natalie Reed, who is, as of now, being added to the “blogs I read folder”. If a little over-long, her article on what his actions and the movement mean to her is inspiring.
Don’t know if this is legit, but it’s hilarious anyway. I don’t really want to be giving more publicity to an idiot/parody, but this just gave me some genuine laughs. And even if the author is an idiot, that doesn’t stop them from being witty.
This is “Checkmate, Pro Choicers” [not linking; find it yourselves!], an awful tumblr run by an awful person with awful ideas. They’ve taken the traditional “ask” format, and used it as a forum for their own stupidity.
That said, some of her responses are just damn funny! And not even in the “oh god, she actually believes that!” sense, but in the sense that sometimes I was actually laughing with her.
Here I was, checking the my webcomics today, minding my own business, when suddenly it leapt out at me – a religious position, held by the archbishop of Canterbury, that doesn’t suck.
I’m as shocked as you are.
But Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, if that is the way you structure his title, has come out and stated that a part of the reason why the church is opposing same-sex marriage is because a lot of christians are wrestling with such feelings themselves, and they need to get their heads in the game and think more clearly about it.
He also says that the church has made itself look silly (paraphrasing) by opposing women bishops and getting high profile involvement in gender politics, and admits that he’s “quite conscious too of the fact that people think that I’m weird and we’re weird.” Hell, he was speaking at an event for Christian teenagers called “Help, my friends think I’m mad”.
Yes, I do think you’re mad. I think you all are. BUT taking rational positions like “we need to get over our disgust over homosexuality” is a great way to cover for that madness.
Not sure how much my opinions have changed about the church; any church. But credit where credit’s due, I guess.
BTW, the offending webcomic is here. YAY JESUS AND MO!
Isn’t this reassuring? A bunch of Anglican priests (or is it vicars?) have come out and said that gay people getting married does not threaten the church. And as much as I wish gay marriage did threaten the church,* they are right to say so. Especially as this is one step towards legalisation.
However, whilst a great thing, there is one problem with this: did you guys notice the word “Anglican” up there? One of the smaller** sects of christiantity has just caved, whereas the word “Catholic” is noticably absent. I suppose that I’m asking the earth, but I’ll only feel glad that human rights are being upheld when all the mystics, soothsayers and exorcists of the multinational corporation of Christ agree to uphold them.
On a related note, do you remember that a few weeks ago I found the Coalition for Marriage? Well, like all leptons have anti-leptons of opposite charge, so there is a contrasting, and awesome, coalition.
The best part is that it actively apes and parodies the original. All of the things I said are mentioned in a rebuttal, along with many others I didn’t. So you have no excuse not to sign the petition. Join the Coalition for Equal Marriage right here:
* I wish that everything – clouds, termites, small rocks, cosmic alignments – everything threatened the church. Not to cause the people in the church harm, but because that way we could pretty much guarantee the crumble of organised religion. Either that, or owning small rocks would become a fatwah-able offence.
** Admittedly still pretty big, compared to many other religions, but still not as big as “The Holy See“.
I’m glad I held off reading The Lay Scientist’s takedown of Coalition for Marriage until after I’d written my own. ‘Cause he went for the same format as I did, and made many of the same points.
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Martin Robbins’ ridicule and disdain for this cowardly maneuver. Set ‘hat’ = ‘taken off’ to The Lay Scientist.
One downside, though: if I’d read his first, I’d have known that this is Lord Carey’s doing. Shame on you!
Why is this happenning here, of all places. Jeebers, it’s bad enough that there are idiots in the states that think this is viable, but it’s worse that now the UK is getting hit by people who think that gay people don’t deserve marriage.
Not civil partnerships. That’s like saying “you can’t celebrate birthdays; no, you get annual enjoyment and life fulfillment celebrations.” It means something similar, but no-one in their right minds would think it was equal, because there are straight people over there with proper birthday parties!
This trend really pisses me off, and I think the main reason is that the arguments are just such crap. Here is what Coalition for Marriage says, responded to, by me, in a foul-mouthed stream-of-consciousness screed:
“Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.”
For years of my life, I thought that it was OK to eat sand. Then I got to the age of 10, and realised that that was stupid, and I should change what I was doing to reflect that stupidity.
“Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there’s no need to redefine marriage. “
Ignoring what I said before: Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so WHY NOT CALL THEM MARRIAGE?
“If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined.”
Yeah, because once that’s happened, then no-one’s gonna want boring old regular skittles – everyone wants the awesome new crazy sour skittles that are all hip and new and shit. Except for the boring old straight people who make up 90% of the population.
Baldercrap! Gay people marrying is never, EVER going to change whether or not straight people want to get married. Ever.
“…and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children.”
And? We made Pluto not a planet. That’s gonna affect a couple of hundred thousand science books, not a poxy few books on law and equality. Teachers will cope. Unless they’re homophobes.
“If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?”
I’m not a polygamist, but tell me why that would be a bad thing. You can’t just state it and assume I’ll agree with you that polygamy is bad. Hell, people can make themselves happy in whatever consensual way doesn’t affect me. Does it affect you?
“Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.”
Doesn’t redefine the – I assume – special bond you have with your partner. Your marriage isn’t having its source code tampered with.
“People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness.”
Ah, appealing to people’s hatred of PC-ness. Very clever, you!
“The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society, and that changing its definition would undermine that benefit.”
If marriage is so awesome, why are you blocking more of it from occurring? If you’re going to claim that it has less of a benefit if it’s gay, then prove it; show me good science!
“The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It reaches out to people of all faiths and none, who believe that marriage is the most successful partnership in history and should not be redefined.”
Wait. Say that again.
“The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders.“
So you are backed by the SINGLE biggest group of policy makers and breakers in the country. Here we come to the thing I find most unappealing and monstrous about this whole campaign because, you see, this is a petition. But if it’s a petition, then why, OH WHY, are you telling us that you are essentially in the majority?
You don’t need our help. Go! Do what you want. Fuck with other people’s lives – we literally can’t stop you, if you have the backing you claim.
But why should we support you, if you’re the majority, and are in power? Oh, that’s right, because you’re doing battle against the rights of a minority. A tiny, vocal minority. A tiny, vocal minority that’re doing things you don’t like. And that terrifies you.
Fuck off, Coalition. To use internet speech*, go die in a fire. Can someone set up an “Anti-Coalition” Coalition? I’d totally sign that.
For actual news on this subject, check out this Pink News article I found.
For a funnier response to gay marriage than I could formulate, watch below.
* Which is like the black speech but worse.
That must make for some truly epic getaways through the gay parts of town!
On a serious note – that is a fucking evil piece of legislation. Oh, and guess who’s behind it – the CHRISTIAN Council of Ghana. Figures!
Back to a comedic note again, that’s a great typo at the bottom of the page. (Boldness quite clearly my own.)
Abotsie said laws outlawing “unnatural canal knowledge” in the Ghanaian criminal code were ambiguous and had not been defined to mean homosexuality, and it was wrong for politicians to be telling police how to carry out their duties.
Damn right it’s not condemning homosexuality – it’s about cracking down on the real threat: VETS!