Thursday, May 10, 2012

George Takei did it wrong.

Please! if you're going to bother making a written argument (or written inflammatory statements?) then 1.) think and 2.) proofread.

We all think that some of the George Takei Facebook posts are funny. I personally found this one very amusing to the point of LOLing. But if he, or whoever made this, is trying to show support for gay marriage then perhaps he needs an editor.

I admit the original quote is witty. But then the "graphic designer", through conscious or subconscious sabotage, added a seemingly innocent set of quotation marks and became my inspiration for all future posts. I agree with George. Rather than using the misnomer, gay marriage, as if it's an actual type of marriage, I will from now on refer to it as "marriage" to make it clear that I'm not referring to sacramental marriage. Thanks George!

I can't blame the second post on George but the logic is obviously flawed. First of all, clearly this post is not meant to provide a well-reasoned statement.  I think a more likely motive is to make all religious people seem irrational and of the opinion that everyone in the world, regardless of their personal beliefs, should be required to follow the teachings of fill-in-the-blank religion. Maybe the implication is that such people claim all sin should be illegal, in which case we should all get ready for our incarceration! But we could make equally reasonable FB flair that says: CLAIMING THAT SOMEONE ELSE MISSING MASS ON A HOLY DAY OF OBLIGATION IS AGAINST YOUR RELIGION IS LIKE BEING ANGRY AT SOMEONE FOR EATING A DONUT BECAUSE YOU'RE ON A DIET. Hahaha, that one's funny too!!! We could teach the catechism this way!

But even if my thinking were muddled enough to mistakenly claim that someone else's marriage is against my religion, a simple statement does not imply anger. Unless we're talking about a specific angry person, then claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is not like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because you're on a diet. If I, a Catholic, say that gay marriage (oops, I mean "marriage") is against Islam is that a display of anger? Probably not. So a more logical statement would be CLAIMING THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S MARRIAGE IS AGAINST YOUR RELIGION IS LIKE CLAIMING THAT DOUGHNUTS ARE AGAINST THE ATKIN'S DIET.

Sadly, we seem to have forgotten that it's possible to disagree without anger or hatred.

And I'm not an expert theologian, but I don't know about marriage and civil ceremonies being against any religion. The post is mistakenly equating marriage with homosexual sex. So if we correct that mistake we're left with:

But wait wait wait.... I know we've all heard the cliche "that's against my religion!" but it makes no sense in this situation. Communism is against my religion, if I'm living under a Communist regime and can't lawfully practice my religion. But is being a sinner against my religion? You see.... at least in my Church, we have this thing called Confession through which you can receive something called absolution. But this sacrament is only available to sinners... so I'm gonna say no. So in order to make any sense of this thing we have to change it to:

Well yes. I can certainly agree with that.

I think we should try to remember that noting the existence of religious bigotry and homophobia is not an argument supporting gay marriage, just like being grossed out by gay sex is not an argument against it. It says nothing about the actual issue, which is the fundamental question, "what is marriage?" and "how should it be legislated?" 

Must we continue to dehumanize each other by insisting that every person opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe? I'm not saying that homophobes don't exist. But I do believe that it's possible to disagree with a person without being afraid of their view. Let's say my husband wants to paint our house blue but I think that all houses should be painted white and I feel that our Home Owner's Association should uphold their rule that all houses in the community will be painted white. Does that make me a chromophobe?

So, for the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to help these people out a little bit. The following are some actual arguments. I don't agree with them, but at least they address the actual issue of marriage legislation and the definition of marriage. Of course they should still be backed up with thinking and proofreading.

1.) Romantic love, sexual attraction, and economic interdependence are each, on their own, sufficient conditions for marriage.
2.) Morals are relative so any legislation must be based on something else.

So George, here are Calvin and Hobbes doing it right: