Skip to main content

Gay Marriage Semantics

One of the most frustrating elements of the gay marriage is the way the proponents, opponents, and the media play word games when discussing the issue.

Today on Yahoo, they said the "culture war" has been revived.

Sorry, but I don't see that as being appropriate. To say that gay people and the people that support them are a "culture" is silly. If there was a law trying to stop African-Americans from getting married, it wouldn't be called a "cultural" issue, it would be called a racial one.

Everyone is avoiding the main word here: Sex.

This entire debate hinges on how uncomfortable people feel with sex. I'm not limiting it to two men or two women having sex either, because I believe ultimately somebody that's offended by the idea of gay sex is probably just as offended by the idea of straight sex.

I also notice everybody dancing around the fact that religion is playing a major part here.

Religious groups have funneled millions of dollars into this cause, and yet the media refuses to focus on this. These groups have well-worded names that utilize terms like "marriage" and "family," but none of them point out that they're based in religion despite the fact that there's no other reason a person should feel so strongly about defining marriage.

How is it that these people are allowed to exert such influence without actually being forced to state the real reasons they're fighting this issue in the first place?

Is it because they know that if this becomes a religious issue it'll be a lot easier to strike it down from a legal standpoint?

It's not all that unusual to see hot button topics become shrouded in politically spun terminology, but when you're talking about basic human rights, it feels like it should be all the more important to keep the wording clear.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A List of People Who Can Go to Hell Now That I Can't Have Elizabeth Warren

So today was a rough day for everybody who isn't a @#$%-ing #$%hole. Let's just start there. If that upsets you, by all means, go straight to hell. This entire rant is going to be exactly what it sounds like. I am mad and I am going to exercise my right to BLOG ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S 1995, SO BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP. I really don't even know where to start, so let's just jump right in with the first person who comes to mind. Bloomberg, go to hell.  You really didn't have anything specific to do with today, but you can just go to hell for spending an ungodly amount of money on literally nothing.  I mean, you could have lit millions of dollars on fire and at least warmed the hands of the homeless, but instead, you made tv stations across the country that are already owned by Conservatives rich, so kudos to you and go to hell. Amy Klobuchar, I STUCK UP FOR YOU AMY.  I got into FIGHTS on SOCIAL MEDIA while DEFENDING your sorry, self-interested ass.  You know

Theater and the Outbreak

After last week's interview, a representative from a theater that recently experienced the results of opening too soon reached out to speak with me. I want to thank this person for coming forward in the hopes that it'll change some minds about what's safe and what isn't when it comes to the performing arts. Here's the interview: ME:  So this wasn't a full production or-- THEM:  No. It was us trying to do a little something for friends and donors. ME:  Who is 'us?' THEM:  The board of _____. ME:  And how long have you been on the board? THEM:  Three years. ME:  What was this going to be? THEM:  There's a, uh, beautiful park here in town, and we wanted to do an outdoor performance of a Shakespeare as a benefit, because, as you know, theaters are having a hard time right now paying the bills. We checked with the local government and the health department for the state to make sure we were doing everything the way we needed to in order to keep everyone s

People You Know Are More Important Than People You Don't Know

This post is in response to arguing with people--straight and gay alike--about a certain celebrity, whether or not she's an ally, if she's pandering, if pandering matters, and whether or not I'm an asshole. The last part is probably an enthusiastic "Yes" but let's reflect on this for a bit anyway without actually giving more time to an argument about a person none of us know, which is a crucial part of what I want to talk about. People you know are more important than people you don't know. I realize it's tricky in an age where we've never been closer or more engaged to our celebrities to keep in mind that we do not know them, they are not our friends, and while we may love them and stan and feel like we're attacked when they're attacked-- That is not true. That is not real. They are in no tangible way connected to us. Now, as someone who is obsessed with pop culture, I get that it's a little hypocritical for me to be making