Press "Enter" to skip to content

Homosexual marriage, a few notes

First of all, I don’t know if I really think debating this issue will do any good at all. I mean, when your opponent is a conservative traditionalist, no amount of arguments are going to change their minds – since their opinions aren’t based on rational thought or arguments, but purely on emotional responses. That’s what makes it so hard to discuss anything with conservatives, really – that they don’t base their arguments or thought processes in any kind of rational thought. “It’s always been this way” is not a bloody argument.

Another non-argument I’m beginning to get sick of is “If you don’t thing marriage is a thing between only a man and a woman, you’re not really a believer”. Oh really. There aren’t many people who follow the LITERAL word of the bible these days, and I do think we’re all a bit happy about that. or would you like a society where stoning was an acceptable form of punishment, for instance? Most Christians today choose what parts of the bible they want to follow, based on tradition and – as they say – common sense. There are a lot of Christians who get that, well, even if the bible was originally handed down by the Lord, it was still written by goddamn people. And people generally filter things – and thus, a lot of what’s in the bible isn’t necessarily relevant, just as it isn’t necessarily historically accurate. A lot of it is symbolic, and a lot of it is simply a product of whatever society it was created in rather than divine inspiration.

Yeah, I know, God promises to keep His word safe, and all that – but take a look at bible translations, and you’ll quickly see that there’re a lot of differences that’ve popped up through the years. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls documents; early Christians had communal property and were pretty much a tiny, sometimes violent sect. A lot has changed. And change is good. If I were to believe in “true free will”, as in we’re not all just biological machines who do exactly what we’re programmed to by society, upbringing, experiences etc, which I don’t, then I’d say the fact that we interpret the bible so differently is a sign of that.

Yeah, if there is a God, and he gave us free will, but he then expects us to act exactly according to an age-old, non-rational set of ethics, well… then it’s not really free will, is it? “Do this or you’ll burn forever” – yeah, free will, right. Most of that burning-in-hell stuff never really appears in the bible. In fact, hell isn’t even a major theme if you bother to actually read the damn book. It’s all “thou shalt not” but there’s not much mention of consequences. We’ve pretty much invented that one ourselves.

Not that I, a distict and definite unbeliever, even care what thet book says – sure, I’ve read through it a few times and I know enough to copnuse most door-knocking Jehova’s Witnesses… But i don’t care, per se. All I care about is that it’s being used by conservative traditionalists to justify an unreational opinion.

As far as I’m concerned, irrationality is the damn antichrist, and all those who purposefully hold on to irrational ideas rather than to explore new venues are doomed – not to hell, but to a very meaningsless life.


  1. Kalle Bergman Kalle Bergman July 20, 2009

    Isn’t, however, marriage in itself a rather irrational practice? A quaint custom originally serving as a kind of sales-contract between a father and a husband, thinly veiled as a religious ceremony? Do we rational, modern people really need marriage at all, and if we don’t, mightn’t we let those who still possess a queer bond to this irrational custom do whatever they please with it?

  2. admin admin July 20, 2009

    Well, the problem is that amongst those who still posses a queer bond to this irrational custom, there are those who would deny others, with an equally queer bond to it, the right to do whatever THEY please with it… In short, the problem isn’t those who choose top marry heterosexually, but those who try to apply their own personal opinion on those who don’t. I mean, by all means, marry heterosexually and in monogamy, if that’s what floats your boat. But if people want to marry homosexually or even by polygamy, then let them have the same right.

  3. Kalle Bergman Kalle Bergman July 20, 2009

    So, in other words, some irrationals are less irrational than others? Or do you perhaps now suggest that rationality isn’t the sole issue, and that it must be complemented with some idea of equal opportunity and freedom of choice? For unless so, why not leave it to the irrationals to sort their irrational battles out among themselves, while we rationals deal with important matters?

    I simply wish to suggest that, if the conflict stands between the irrational wish of certain people to get married, and the equally irrational wish of certain other people to stop the first group of people from getting married, then perhaps “rationality” isn’t what’s at stake, at all.

  4. Krank Krank July 20, 2009

    Well, if someone tries to control others using irrational arguments, then lack of rationality is a part of the problem. I never suggested rationality was “at stake”. Marriage, to me, is by itself completely irrelevant. Also, a person is never irrational or rational – people are also irrelevant. Arguments must be weighed against each other, regardless of the person – it is the irrationality of the arguments I dislike. It’s not a battle between irrationals and rationals – it’s a battle between people who use more or less rational arguments. In the case of same-sex marriage, it’s about group A, whose goal is for group A to gain access to certain privileges – and group B, who wish to deny group A those privileges. A aren’t telling B they can’t have the same privileges. B really have nothing to lose, in the strictest sense, and like most people who argue for inequality in any form, they are without rational arguments. It’s not about marriage – it’s about those who want to limit other people without accepting similar limitations for themselves.

    Could marriage be eliminated completely, and noone could get married, that would be more equal, more rational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.