The answer, I suspect, is that many people think of "marriage" as a religious rather than a legal term. If Christians suddenly started celebrating their birthdays as "bar mitzvahs," it would probably upset some Jews, who would see it as insulting. If atheists started wearing crucifixes to signify their atheism, it would surely perturb some Christians, who might see it as blasphemous. The real flash point about the word "marriage" is that some people strongly associate the word with their religious understandings, and those understandings most definitely do not embrace same-sex relationships. Thus, even if they are willing, as good citizens, to grant gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," they can't stand the thought of seeing a "sacred" word, and concept, brutalized.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/same-sex-marriage-and-the_b_347593.html&cp
Yes, Mr. Stone. A main misconception about the drive for gay marriage is the fact none of the opposition tends to know what they (LGBTQ) people want it for!
The beginning of the widespread media coverage of their plight consisted of controversy over the misconception of the origin of the AIDS virus. There were many articles published that implied the perception that the homosexual community was a large demographic of those affected by AIDS. In addition, it was because of their non conventional ways that they were at greater risk than any other subculture. In my research, though, I find that there is some rational truth embedded in the hoodoo.
For example:
In summary, this model illustrates how AIDS could have developed in homosexual men as a result of an interaction of known or likely biologic effects generated by repeated exposures to specific infectious and noninfectious environmental factors. Numerous reports now document the specific environmental and biologic features that were regarded as important in the 1983 model, which appears-with minor updating-below.
Let's be real and uncensored for a moment - with gay men, there is often the chance of anal sex. Just as with heterosexual sex, there is the potential for the sex to be protected or not protected. I can imagine that there is some misunderstanding of getting STDs through heterosexual sex only, or even just through vaginal intercourse rather than through a usually not spoken of orifice. However, it has been proven that among the different types of bodily excrement, urine is the one that can be considered safe to consume or to even deal with after it comes from the body. Feces, which come from the bum, are filled with different sorts of bacteria and viruses that are quite harmful to man.
Wikipedia will serve it's purpose now:
The main pathogens that are commonly looked for in feces include:
* Salmonella and Shigella
* Yersinia tends to be incubated at 30 °C (86 °F), which is cooler than usual
* Campylobacter incubated at 42 °C (108 °F), in a special environment
* Aeromonas
* Candida if the person is immunosuppressed (e.g., undergoing cancer treatment)
* E. coli O157 if blood is visible in the stool sample
* Cryptosporidium
* Entamoeba histolytica
Not to say that the female vagina isn't equally putrid - it can be at times, but fecal matter is far more dangerous.
Tangent. Obviously.
Nevertheless, there was a lack of safe sex practice - okay, understood.
If the demographic is basically underground, there is no forum to speak on progressive issues.
The next issue in widespread media in relation to the LGBTQ community involved the military.
Note: I do understand that the prevalence of homophobic action was and is an issue, however, to make this short and sweet, let's just move on with that understanding.
President Clinton mandated the "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule. My ex-girlfriend was in the army and was removed from such due to this rule. A rule that, in my opinion, was unfairly inflicted upon her. The military is a universal structural engine - to ensure that the citizens of the country have a way by which they can be taken care of financially as well as reinforce and maintain the self-discipline that they should have been taught when they were a child.
(After the lack of sexual activity in BCT, the troops have almost no way to expel sexual energy - why not engage in some team and muscle building exercise in one! JOKE JOKE JOKE)
Currently, President Obama professes to be on the war path to allow LGBTQ peoples equal rights in the military. With this strategic move, the rest of the country has no choice but to follow. This was expressed with the dislike of Black Americans in the early part of the 20th Century. It was not until the American military began to integrate their troops that the entire country followed suite and warmed up to the idea of equality for Black Americans.
Now, we have the issue of allowing the institution of marriage being open to members of other orientations and lifestyles. The institution of marriage always will be and still is a political institution in this imperial society we live in. From the royal families of Europe partaking in their incestuous rendezvous and the ancient Kemetians differentiating who their own royal family was allowed to marry - the institution of marriage has proven to be one of the main deciding factors in the make up of many social environments and hierarchies. Along with this institution, marriage has been brought to the level of allowances for those partaking in it. From death rights to tax allowances to the granting of citizenship to monetary spousal benefits - marriage has proven to be a money- and life- making business.
Here is where we find the true reasons why it is important to allow the LGBTQ community to have their simple title that the diluted demographic is holding onto oh so dearly.
Gay homeowners spend 50% more than their heterosexual counterparts, for one.
"I'm thinking down the road. Washington state could be one of the next states to allow same-sex marriage, and when they do, I want to have these images in my portfolio," he says. "Eventually I think it's going to be a great market, especially here in Seattle where gay couples tend to be dual income professionals."
- for two.
Although gay couples tend to spend more modestly, they tend to spend more. Just not where some may want them to spend (although that is at the fault of those who are homophobic), for three.
Just think:
you've been living with Sally/Tyrone for x years. Over the course of these decades, Sally/Tyrone and you have been estranged from your families due to your lifestyle and you two are the happiest people in the world. You both are living your lives, going on lavish vacations with your gay and gay-accepting friends. The both of your assets and overall worth and wealth grows immensely.
But, alas, Sally/Tyrone finds out they have cancer. They go into a state of being brain dead. There is a 10% chance of recovery and there is but one question - does Sally/Tyrone stay on life support or does the plug need to be pulled?
Then there comes the hierarchy of relevant parties: the patient (if sound, which Sally/Tyrone is not), a surrogate that the "sound" patient designated, the spouse, and the next of kin - going down that line.
You and Sally/Tyrone, however, are not married. You live in Bofunk, Mississippi - gay marriage and/or civil unions are banned by law, as many other states in your surrounding area. .
Sally/Tyrone and you have amassed a sick amount of wealth - investments, properties, stocks. Their father (who acted as if the both of you never existed for the past x decades) decides that he wants to use the money to get out of his debt and retire himself. You have no power over this. Your life-long partner, the light in your eye, is pulled off of life support and you are forced to deal with the consequences of a situation you had no control over.
THAT is inhumane.
Point Blank Period. Everyone is human. We should all be allowed to have the same rights despite the religious or historical implications of whatever terminology it entails.
Question - is it hurting you?
Did it hurt the white folks when we were integrated and we began to invite our innovation into their companies at corporate levels?
Thank you.
My case is stated and validated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment