Marriage: Your License To Screw
Oh it's fun watching fundies today. I've been having my fair share of laughs at the latest American Taliban Production known as stop the federal hate crimes bill. Their supposed reasoning is that a hate crimes bill is somehow akin to 'thought crimes' because in fundie theory the motive makes no difference to the crime. Of course, we all know each other well enough to be honest: It's because groups like IFI and Americans for Truth are about 2 hairs away from being declared hate organizations to begin and - in the world of the Jeebus freak it's their god given right to bash homos just like the big man did at Sodom and Gomorrah. Despite the Earthly shortages of both fire and brimstone, the fundamentalists always find a work around and it won't be long as the gay rights movement continues to quicken pace before that side starts with violence.
But the real fun these days comes from HB1331 or as IFI dubs it The Homosexual/Shack-Up Teachers Bill which gives some employees the right to grant their domestic partner their death benefits. It's interesting that IFI writes up as an 'excessive cost' issue as where if these particular teachers were married we'd be paying the benefits anyway therefore IFI's sole argument is that queer folk and people who don't subscribe to Christian extremist rhetoric about relationship validation through the church shouldn't get any money should their spouse pass. Remember: People who don't live the so called Christian life style are second class citizens and aren't entitled to superficial 'special rights' like money.
Side note: If you'd like to know why fighting gay marriage is entirely a lost cause, it's because even if SSM legislation doesn't come quickly, major employers are quickly adding domestic partnership benefits to their employment jackets and as the business world moves in that direction, so too will the public sector regardless of what trailer living fundies boycott - simply because queer folk on the whole have a profound amount of disposable income based on the fact that the vast majority of them are DINKs.
In order to really understand what's going on here you can spend some time taking a look at how the fundies view marriage but if you're really interested in seeing how they think, your best bet is to start with the fundie views on sex - simply because you'll find that almost every issue they take a huge stance on really relates back to sex. Even abortion, the long time fundie call (and probably one of the few issues where fundamentalists are on an acceptable side of the fence, though for entirely the wrong reasons) really is more about sex then it is about babies not being killed in the womb.
Jill Stanek was nice enough to admit it for us:
Gays and pro-aborts both fight for the same goal: Sex without judgment or consequences.
So while Jill is busy cooking up arguments for why we shouldn't vaccinate girls against the HPV vaccine, the real reason is because it empowers men and women to have sex without consequence, which if I remember correctly I already told you people and here she is essentially admitting that I'm right and that all of you wingnuts babbling about the great evil of STD vaccination are also full of it. And yes, I am gloating.
Anyway, I encourage you to read through the comments to notice that not a single one of Jill's supporters actually ask the question: "Why should sex have consequences?" Instead of asking tough questions of themselves and their own humanity, they go into diatribes of how to force feed their counterfeit Jeebus into the masses:
Their views are simply evidence of their rebellion towards God. With that said, their arguments are easily destroyed by wielding the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.
Sex was not created just as a pleasure mechanism!! Sex has a purpose: to create new life & to expand God's beautiful and totally unique creation on Earth!!! To bring Him glory!!
But remember, none of this stuff means they would argue in duplicity for what they say is 'protecting the family' but what is really bringing Jesus to the masses whether you like it or not. You might also note that if it were a fundamentalist Muslim talking about the 'sword of the spirit', we'd all be demanding the FBI get over to this guys house and this guy would probably be screaming the loudest.
I couldn't make this stuff up. Seriously. I want you to look very closely at that Stanek statement and realize that those 14 words really are a nice peek into the extremist world view where all things related to sex and sexual empowerment is bad. In that world view, sex ought have consequences be it in terms of an unwanted baby, an STD, or being flat out told that you deserve violence against you for having sex with somebody who hasn't been approved by jeebus or not seeking validation of sex through the church.
And when you're pondering that statement and exploring the implied world view, ask yourself why exactly sex should have consequences?
So consider the rhetoric:
1. Sex outside of marriage is sin.
2. Public policy should punish those who have sex outside of marriage. This punishment may be done through action or inaction.
3. Christian extremists ought be able to choose who is and isn't allowed to get married.
Cool gag, ain't it? Their number one purpose with all their 'focus on the family' crap is to decide who screws and when - which is why the social sex control known as marriage is so important to them because it's the only societal control that allows them to expand past the ongoings in their own mega churches and into mainstream society.
So by public policy validating relationships in practice that otherwise remain unvalidated by the good lord, essentially the G is again departing from the default Christian control on yet another issue which continues to illustrate that their previous majority dominance is dwindling and so to is their ability to control the 'sin' around them via public policy.
3 comments:
What does the Catholic Church teach?
Dan,
You also need to ask; if sex without consequence is bad according to these nutjobs, then any unintended consequence that DOES result from such must therefore be a punishment. You see this in their 'rhetoric' surrounding AIDS and STDs.
Further, though, they then also see having a child as punishment for heterosexual sex (unless us lesbians have a virgin birth, and wouldn't THAT cause some grey-matter explosions amongst their crowd?).
Let's get that out there: a child as punishment.
And they say us pro-choice people hate children ...
There are consequences to sex (and just about any other action in life). This does not mean that there has to be agreement with a political or religious agenda of the women you demonize (I don't know them nor know much about them)-but obviously they are some type of Christian fundamentalist and politically conservative group.
It is not that cool and avant garde--and fairly typical at this point in US history--to make fun of "fundamentalist" Christians--but for a political blog (and not the Howard Stern radio show)--you seem to go a little far with the "Jeebus" qoutes and real disrespect for Christians and some of the terminology used.
It is certainly not necessarily, or at least not intentionally, to control woman or hate gays--to want children to understand limits or natural consequences to sexuality and the sex act. The sex act can lead to children, it is inherently procreative (at least the heterosexual typical sex act)--understanding it does not always lead to children and there is contraception or other forms (condoms, prescription birth control, coitus interruptus--as is still popular with many teenagers)to stop pregnancy.
It is not just to scare kids off with STDs but to also recognize a reality that many (although not all) of pre-marrriage and (or) teenagers who are sexually active or even promiscous do have STDs or other health issues. There are consequences and health concerns even beyond STDs to infections (not disease per se)and other issues that would be more appropriate for a health and not a political forum.
Human sexuality is a complex topic and refraining from sex (because of consequences including emotional issues) is not unwise.
Certainly, traditional religious perspectives (most with differences) believe that the proper context of sex is in marriage. That even within marriage some (like Roman Catholics) focus on the purposes of procreation and nurturing of marital love (not a denial of pleasure which is inherent and Pope John Paul II actually went into detail into giving a woman an orgasm and the affirmative duty of couples to give pleasure to each other--within in the context of marriage and openess to new life).
The negative side of this perspective is limiting sex outside of marriage (at least for moral and spiritual reasons and this has been previously reflected in society, culture and even the law--although that certainly has changed or is changing)
Certainly extra-marital affairs, and other sexual activities can lead to destruction of marriage and families--which hurt kids. The marriage is also an institution (at least theoretically and ideally) is meant to raise children (and from a spiritual but even a societal perspective--is not just about the self fulfillment of the individuals outside the social order or outside having or raising children) Most statistical studies, even with a non religious or traditional bias, indicate that children from a 2 parent family are better off (on average). This does NOT mean that there are not incredible single moms, or kids who are even abused that become amazing people--BUT what it does mean that statistically on average the chances of success on any number of factors from criminal to educational to financial--are better with those from a "traditional 2 parent family".
Traditional 2 parent families are affected by affairs, addictions to pornography, and sex is powerful and affects people and institutions.
You can make fun of people all you want. You can joke, use the Lord's name in vain in any phonetic permutation you want, or lump everyone together from any religious, family or traditional perspective--but that will not change the fact that sex does have consequences--some consequences in nature can be stopped--and maybe should be--by use of condoms or other technology to prevent transmission of disease or stop pregnancy--but there still are other consequences like the more intangible emotional ones--and maybe there is even right and wrong and a God and there are spiritual consequences.
Post a Comment