Pro Gay For Pay?
Awhile back aishuu had an interesting post about how allowing same-sex marriage might affect the US economy. I just stumbled across this Newsweek article about how gay marriages are quite profitable for the states where it's legal, a revelation which doesn't particularly surprise me. All of the major theme parks (Sea World, Disneyland, Universal, etc.) have Gay Days or specials to attract gay couples to their parks, so obviously there's a lot of disposable income to be had, enough to offset the boycotts from the Southern Baptists. Also, some cities also specifically target gay couples to come vacation there, advertising their gay friendly status and such (I guess gay people don't want to feel that they might be treated rudely, stared at, or threatened while on vacation, especially if they live in hostile areas). Advertising campaigns are not cheap, so obviously the benefit is worth the expense.
Now obviously some people just aren't that interested in the rights of people who are not like them.
(cut for length! But I promise it's not boring at the least, and surprise Colbert...)
I've always been saddened by people who just don't seem to care when I tell them about racial discrimination or gender discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination -- because they're in the "majority," and they don't have to deal with that issue themselves. I can't help thinking of the times of Jim Crow, and deciding that these people would be a part of the "silent majority" -- perhaps they wouldn't actively hurt or protest against blacks, but they would be complicit in their silence. And I wonder what I would have done. There have been times when I didn't say anything when I should have, and God knows that in my head I'm just as guilty of stereotyping as anyone else. It's part of human nature. But I try to be aware of it and give myself a mental kick when it's deserved.
I digress. My point: some people will never bother to look beyond their own self-interests. So for the sake of the American economy, let's allow gays to marry. Make sure your state does it before your neighboring states, so you can benefit from out-of-state gays travelling to your state to marry. Do it for $$$$. Also, you can hit the happily married gay residents with the Marriage Penalty Tax. Make 'em pay!
In other news, isn't this the most dishonest thing EVER? Icon Adam certainly thinks so. This is a link to the National Organization for Marriage's website, also known as NOM NOM NOM. Only a zombie would think this is a good argument because it likes to NOM NOM brainzzz.
[quote]I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us." [/quote]
UMM. I don't think SO. The issue is that gay people DON'T "have the right to live as they choose." They don't have the right to be gay and serve our country in the armed forces (FYI, our country just FIRED a bomber pilot who was trained at the cost of $25 MILLION because it was discovered he was gay. (Let's talk about the economy again, how much are all these fired servicepeople costing our nation?) Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, done a horrible disservice. Gay people don't have the right in many states to be able to make medical decisions for their partners or visit their sick partners in the hospitals. Their wills can be challenged in court by their families if they leave assets to their partners. They can't adopt children in some states. In many states, they can be openly fired for being gay, and they have no legal recourse. This is sick and wrong.
"They don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us." And how exactly is a "redefinition" going to hurt a happily married heterosexual couple in any tangible way? How will it hurt that hetero couple economically? How will it disturb their sense of well-being? How will it infringe upon their constitutional rights? How will the imaginary pain gay marriage causes heterosexual couples in any way be equivalent to the real and quite tangible pain suffered by gay couples every day? Give me a statistic! Give me a report! Give me something real, something that can be proven.
[quote]
Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage.[/quote]
Our goal is simple. We can't produce an effective rebuttal if our opponents want to talk about discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. So let's shift the focus back to ourselves, and how our poor fragile egos will be shattered if our next-door neighbors can get married just like us, as if they were our equals.
[quote]
• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is pretty annoying when your neighbors are protesting for their rights and getting all up in your face. Might I suggest firehoses and dogs? It works wonders to shut up annoyances!
[quote]
• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
[/quote]
O RLY? Then why do we let senior citizens or infertile people get married? Why do we let people who choose to be "childfree" get hitched? I thought marriage was about a bond between two willing adults who want try enjoying the rest of their lives together, not about their hypothetical future children alone.
[quote]
Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity-either mothers or fathers-are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
[/quote]
Of course not. But it's okay to teach them that two mothers or two fathers are inadequate and disgusting. And while we're at it, let's make all the divorcees with children feel really awful.
Yes, children are easily confused. So shall we continue to keep sex simple by just saying "don't touch, it's bad!" They can understand that... we'll omit the confusing stuff about birth control and condoms. Hey, let's also keep human relationships nice and simple. Two gay people getting married is confusing and different from what we're used to. So let's just not allow it.
:sighs: The rest of this page is full of similar bull. I simply don't have the will to pick through anymore of it. Basically these kind of "arguments" would only appeal to someone who's already decided that gays getting hitched is a bad thing, and is just looking for "justification."
However, NOM NOM does have one thing going for it. Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report decided to parody NOM's anti-gay-marriage ad. It is a thing of beauty. I promise you will laugh at least three times. (Link to a news article that links to the ad -- in it, you can see both the original and Stephen's "improvement.")
A Storm Is Coming...
My points might not be flawless, but I feel that it was important to state them. If in even a small way, I can convince someone to care about other people who are different and "strange" -- to care about the plight of The Other -- then it's worth it. I don't want groups like NOM to be the ones to decide the future for us. Their future is about self-absorption and selfishness and exclusion. History shows us the fruits of that kind of future.
As always, comments are welcomed.
Now obviously some people just aren't that interested in the rights of people who are not like them.
(cut for length! But I promise it's not boring at the least, and surprise Colbert...)
I've always been saddened by people who just don't seem to care when I tell them about racial discrimination or gender discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination -- because they're in the "majority," and they don't have to deal with that issue themselves. I can't help thinking of the times of Jim Crow, and deciding that these people would be a part of the "silent majority" -- perhaps they wouldn't actively hurt or protest against blacks, but they would be complicit in their silence. And I wonder what I would have done. There have been times when I didn't say anything when I should have, and God knows that in my head I'm just as guilty of stereotyping as anyone else. It's part of human nature. But I try to be aware of it and give myself a mental kick when it's deserved.
I digress. My point: some people will never bother to look beyond their own self-interests. So for the sake of the American economy, let's allow gays to marry. Make sure your state does it before your neighboring states, so you can benefit from out-of-state gays travelling to your state to marry. Do it for $$$$. Also, you can hit the happily married gay residents with the Marriage Penalty Tax. Make 'em pay!
In other news, isn't this the most dishonest thing EVER? Icon Adam certainly thinks so. This is a link to the National Organization for Marriage's website, also known as NOM NOM NOM. Only a zombie would think this is a good argument because it likes to NOM NOM brainzzz.
[quote]I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us." [/quote]
UMM. I don't think SO. The issue is that gay people DON'T "have the right to live as they choose." They don't have the right to be gay and serve our country in the armed forces (FYI, our country just FIRED a bomber pilot who was trained at the cost of $25 MILLION because it was discovered he was gay. (Let's talk about the economy again, how much are all these fired servicepeople costing our nation?) Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, done a horrible disservice. Gay people don't have the right in many states to be able to make medical decisions for their partners or visit their sick partners in the hospitals. Their wills can be challenged in court by their families if they leave assets to their partners. They can't adopt children in some states. In many states, they can be openly fired for being gay, and they have no legal recourse. This is sick and wrong.
"They don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us." And how exactly is a "redefinition" going to hurt a happily married heterosexual couple in any tangible way? How will it hurt that hetero couple economically? How will it disturb their sense of well-being? How will it infringe upon their constitutional rights? How will the imaginary pain gay marriage causes heterosexual couples in any way be equivalent to the real and quite tangible pain suffered by gay couples every day? Give me a statistic! Give me a report! Give me something real, something that can be proven.
[quote]
Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage.[/quote]
Our goal is simple. We can't produce an effective rebuttal if our opponents want to talk about discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. So let's shift the focus back to ourselves, and how our poor fragile egos will be shattered if our next-door neighbors can get married just like us, as if they were our equals.
[quote]
• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is pretty annoying when your neighbors are protesting for their rights and getting all up in your face. Might I suggest firehoses and dogs? It works wonders to shut up annoyances!
[quote]
• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
[/quote]
O RLY? Then why do we let senior citizens or infertile people get married? Why do we let people who choose to be "childfree" get hitched? I thought marriage was about a bond between two willing adults who want try enjoying the rest of their lives together, not about their hypothetical future children alone.
[quote]
Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity-either mothers or fathers-are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
[/quote]
Of course not. But it's okay to teach them that two mothers or two fathers are inadequate and disgusting. And while we're at it, let's make all the divorcees with children feel really awful.
Yes, children are easily confused. So shall we continue to keep sex simple by just saying "don't touch, it's bad!" They can understand that... we'll omit the confusing stuff about birth control and condoms. Hey, let's also keep human relationships nice and simple. Two gay people getting married is confusing and different from what we're used to. So let's just not allow it.
:sighs: The rest of this page is full of similar bull. I simply don't have the will to pick through anymore of it. Basically these kind of "arguments" would only appeal to someone who's already decided that gays getting hitched is a bad thing, and is just looking for "justification."
However, NOM NOM does have one thing going for it. Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report decided to parody NOM's anti-gay-marriage ad. It is a thing of beauty. I promise you will laugh at least three times. (Link to a news article that links to the ad -- in it, you can see both the original and Stephen's "improvement.")
A Storm Is Coming...
My points might not be flawless, but I feel that it was important to state them. If in even a small way, I can convince someone to care about other people who are different and "strange" -- to care about the plight of The Other -- then it's worth it. I don't want groups like NOM to be the ones to decide the future for us. Their future is about self-absorption and selfishness and exclusion. History shows us the fruits of that kind of future.
As always, comments are welcomed.