It Get’s Better – 10 Reasons

I managed to find a list from Defend Marriage (provided by a very nice reader), listing 10 reasons equal marriage rights for GLBT must be opposed and I figured that a short rebuttal is necessary against the most common arguments people give against equal marriage rights. I know a lot of the readers probably agree with me, but a few people will show up and read this and it may change their mind or at least give them something to think about. I understand that this is a TL:DR post, but think of it as a Cracked article.

Naturally this is from a christian perspective, but it’s basically the same arguments as passed down by all the people who wish to deny equality but I shall deal with it mainly from a christian perspective.

1. It Is Not Marriage 

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Ladies! You get to share a man! Aren’t we generous? You are welcome!
(Signed by the Council of Nicea)

Okay that’s a really cheap shot. It’s just a picture and it’s already crippled the argument through a combination of truth and ridicule (Truthicule?). This argument fails to realise that if the sole purpose of marriage is to breed like rabbits, then surely it doesn’t matter if gay people got married or not. It’s not like they are going to breed and it’s not like their marriage is going to some how cause you to stop breeding. And I thought marriage is about love, about wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone you value, hopefully till you both die together peacefully a long time from now. That’s the ideal but we know it’s not possible. Most people will die leaving a partner behind, and many marriages don’t last till that point. The children we bring up are a product of this love and devotion. At least, that’s what it means to me. Different people see different meanings in marriage and love and I accept that. But you cannot make a blanket statement that marriage exists solely for fucking and babies.

This argument is just sexist to both genders. There are physiological differences in gender brought about by our genetics. I don’t need to point those out, we all know them. Those are differences that are innate to us.

Then there are societal differences, or things that are enforced by society on our gender behaviour. Even such harmless ideas as “men like blue, women like pink” and “women don’t play video-games” or such dangerous ones as “women aren’t as good as men at work” and “Women really mean yes when they say no”. These are societal pressures. These are ideas that are embraced by society and impressed on the various genders, to the point that there are women who don’t work as hard as men because no one told that they could, and that there are men who don’t take no for an answer…

A simple example of societal expectations being subverted is Sigourney Weaver.

The Societal Norm – Weaver as a damsel in distress who needs to be
rescued by “the man”. The man in this case being Bill Murray who
she falls in love with because of gratitude (presumably).
The Subversion – This is Ellen Ripley who doesn’t
need a man to rescue her. All she needs
is a big gun, a flame thrower, duct tape
and a giant robot. 

There are more interesting examples of societal pressure out there. In this case marriage is itself a societal pressure. The expectation to go through a specific song and dance that somehow legitimises the act of sex and somehow stops children from being bastards. The only thing that creates this idea is pure societal pressure.

The Human Race seems to be going along just fine in any case, what with us hitting the Seven Billion Mark. Let’s just say we could do with a fair few more gay marriages in India and China if it indeed worked that way.

2. It Violates Natural Law 

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by nat
ural law. 
Natural laws most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the acts purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal andimmutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15) 

Natural Law is the assumption that whatever christians do is good and proper and if anyone does something similar to them then it’s due to Natural Law or the innate divine laws handed down by Jehovah rather than logic and common sense. Never mind that murder is illegal in most societies because murder disrupts society. Never mind that feuds are settled in courts rather than as family conflict which can prevent society from forming. Never mind that these are evolutionarily advantageous things.

Where is Natural Law Written? Are we discussing Platonian or Aristotlian natural law? Or are we discussing the Natural Law as written by Hobbes which is all about behaving nicely and nothing about gay sex or even gay marriage. Unless we lost his 20th constituent of natural law and it says “no fags!”.

There are many different ideas of natural law because there are many different beliefs in it. There exists no natural law bar the ones we create. A lot of laws make sense so many different people come to the same law independently. It’s like how we all have the same shape of drinking container to drink our water. It’s not a natural law, it’s just that beaker shape is great for holding liquids.

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother 

It is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children
who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a childs best interests.

And this will be his high chair! 

This is an argument steeped in the notion that the only way to bring up a child is with a mother and father no matter the quality of parent. There are no other alternative ways of bringing up a child, and if your wife or husband should be taken into the embrace of whatever merciful creator you may believe in then you are out of luck. Your kid is fucked. There is no way, no matter what you do as a man/woman that your kid will turn out fine. However if your wife is alive then you could be crack addicts and make your son sleep in a bed of knives and he will turn out to be perfectly fine.

This is an argument that denigrates the efforts of any GLBT couple who adopt rather than rely on surrogacy. A lot of GLBT couples adopt rather than rely on surrogates and the adoption means that a child is removed from a foster home and placed with people who want to genuinely care for them. Kids in foster care don’t effectively have parents because they are either orphans or their parents are otherwise indisposed (be they severely ill, mentally unsound, criminals or deceased). Apparently being made to live in a series of foster homes is better than being placed in a kind and loving home

Husband! Make me a sandwich!

Any adopted readers will confirm that their adopted parents showered them with as much love and affection as their biological parents. That despite there being no genetic relationship they will consider their adopted parents as their mum and dad solely because they did the things that mums and dads do. This insults single parents who often do a stellar job (be they single mums or indeed single dads who rarely get a nod in the public eye) raising their kids. No, no one hears about the good stories from single parents because that’s not a story. No one starts a conversation about how well behaved their kids are!

And again this works under the assumption that mother and father role models are indeed necessary and gender determined by genetics rather than gender determined by society. That somehow women are the civil society of the house while men form the judicial wing… That men should know power tools and cars and beer while women should know when to cook and when to shut up. And that neither gender can subvert their roles in society, to rise above these foolish pressures and be more than just a penis or a vagina. To these people, the modern society where men can and will take responsibility with the child rearing is a horrid prospect. To these people a society where women can do whatever a man can do is an abhorrent dystopian future rather than an ideal society. They live in the fear that breaking gender roles will create a generation of women who won’t listen to their chauvinist ways and who will understand that they are equal to men and won’t be denigrated by them.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle 

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyones perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

Your brain says no, but your reflexes say yes. 

Yes it does. It does validate the homosexual lifestyle as an equal of our heterosexual ways. I see no point in that. I am straight, I have no attraction to men. At no point after homosexuality was decriminalised have straight men ever decided to that they want to have sex with other men. It’s just not an option. At no point have straight women ever thought “I Fancy Women” because they saw someone lesbian walk by.

How does it even obscure moral values? Whose? The bible isn’t the only moral code and it’s a pretty backwards one at that because it cannot accept that being yourself is the moral thing to do. Pretending to be straight just does not work.

And how does it devalue traditional marriage? I mean seriously? I don’t think my future marriage is any worse off because more people can enjoy it. Do you know what devalues marriage?

Pretending to be something you are not. Lying… It hurts the person you are married to and it hurts you the most.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right 

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of
the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man
and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Nature? Rape is one of the most natural things in nature but we ban it. Because we are an unnatural species. Pants are unnatural but I don’t see christians complaining about the nudity laws.

The assumption is that homosexuality is a learned behaviour or is a behaviour that is acquired. It’s not, most gay people learn at a young age that they simply aren’t attracted to women and prefer men instead. It’s “innate”. The reasons don’t matter.

And it has nothing to do with racial equality. They are different issues entirely, it has however everything to do with EQUALITY. In that two adults want to do what they want in the comfort of their own house. And that you don’t have any rights to impinge on theirs. All they want is their unions to be recognised as equal to yours and they have the same benefits as yours. That’s all. They don’t want to get married in homophobic churches, they want to get married in places which accept them for who they are.

This is like stating that people who have sex doggy style are not allowed to be married.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union 

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union  marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

What about sterile couples? They cannot produce children so is their marriage null and void?

And most gay people tend to adopt because they would rather raise a child who doesn’t have a family than go through the rigmarole of creating life via artificial and expensive means. Not all gay people are rich enough to afford all of this.

7. It Defeats the States Purpose of Benefiting Marriage 

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and
strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual “marriage” does
not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

No, one of the main reasons it bestows benefits on marriage is that it makes life easier for people who are married and makes it easier to settle down in one place and to calculate taxation since a family unit earns as a group.

And people have sex and babies just fine without marriage registers and indeed government encouragement of marriage. I don’t see why a government stamp somehow makes you have babies better, neither do I understand how a church ceremony achieves the same. What I do understand though is that this is a societal pressure, that somehow a ceremony causes your relationship to be legitimise
d and grants you all sorts of benefits.

I mean this is just really spiteful. What are you losing by letting gay people sign onto the register? I mean this logic can be used to deny sterile people the right to sign onto the register. So far this is not an argument against gay people in so much as an argument against people who are incapable of having children for one reason or the other.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society 

By legalizing same-sex “marriage ,” the State be comes it’s official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony , orders public schools to teach it’s acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their
consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
 

If your biggest gripe about legitimising gay marriage is that it will clamp down on homophobia then you are a homophobe.

Take that Nature!

Kids are killing themselves because people have taught their kids hate and to legitimise their bullying of homosexual children. And the biggest gripe the right wing can come up with is “see! They are preventing us from being dicks”.

And I am an atheist. I am an assault on christian morality in that I don’t need a god to exceed the morality of bronze age jews. My very existence is an insult to all faith simply because I can exceed their morality by applying my intellect into finding solutions to problems I am faced with through reason and thought rather than blind faith in a magical set of rules.

That and if bumming is all it takes to subvert the natural order then surely the very existence of humans is an assault on the natural the likes of which have never been seen.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same sex “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is
universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations. The railroading of same-sex“marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell
wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
 

The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.

No… The sexual liberation movement was a product of women realising that they could control their own relationships rather than having to fit into the idea of marrying the first man that got their father’s permission.

It had nothing to do with legalisation of perversion and everything to do with women realising that sex was freaking amazing. And no one is going to legalise incest, bestiality or paedophilia on the basis of “incest isn’t particularly healthy”, bestiality is animal abuse and since children cannot legally give consent it is considered rape and very often it is “classical” rape which is abuse of power and usage of force to acquire sex against a non willing person (who in this case happens to also be underage).

10. It Offends God 

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this.
Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in
the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7). Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down
sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

But hang on, if marriage is mandated and protected almost solely by religion then this isn’t an argument against gay marriage being recognised by the state. It’s an argument against all marriage recognised by the state as per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US constitution as financial bonuses are given to individuals involved in marriages.

Apparently the biggest threat to marriage isn’t gay marriage but homophobes, not gay people who just want marriage to mean what it means for most of us. A symbol of love and affection between two people who wish to have a special day to formalise their love. And to get presents…

The Moral Majority

In every nation there exists something called the “moral majority”. It’s a self identified group of holier than thou activists who believe  that they are so wholesome and good that their way of life is the only way of life to follow. These people are usually self identified as religious, either right wingers or identify as libertarians (primarily because real society forces on us a series of rules that prevent the kind of dickishness that the moral majority dream that they could apply to the rest of us.). A good example of the fight for morality is the Moral Majority Alliance in the USA which includes such stellar organisations as the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and Liberty Alliance. It boggles the mind as a foreigner that such associations can name themselves such while being anti family and anti liberty.
For example the Liberty Alliance actively campaigns against Hate Speech Laws. The rules that protected black people from racists also helps protect homosexuals from… well people in the Liberty Alliance. They actively campaign against laws protecting against discrimination, because freedom means freedom to be a giant bigot. They think that the bible gives them the right to define what marriage is, preventing gays from getting their marriages recognised. They think that gay people should not mention their personal lives in the military solely because of who they chose to have sex with.

You are Ruining Our Idea Of Marriage

Everytime I hear about arguments against Gay Marriage, I ask the people who make them “Why does it Matter”? The GLBT aren’t going to somehow denigrate our straight marriage.

And then I saw this and realised why they fear it. Are you ready? It’s NSFW. It’s NSF for those who are of a nervous disposition.

If your heart didn’t grow a size then you need to seek urgent medical attention. Step into my TARDIS…

If you can be this dedicated for 42 years and still see the person you met in the same way as the day you met her. If you can hold your hand up and say that despite everything the only thing that’s changed is that your love for each other has grown stronger over the years. If you can love each other even when everyone else says you are abominations. If you can love each other even when the entire world seeks to tear you apart.

Then I am sorry, then the reason we cannot let you get married is because you mak1e the rest of us look bad.

And that’s why they fear Gay Marriage. It’s not that the world will end or that it’s a slippery slope where you can now get into a polyamorous wedding with a redwood tree and a dolphin. It’s not that a god will rain hellfire on us like a bored Simcity Player.

It’s that we are afraid that they will show us up and we are jealous.

If we let gays marry, then what about the Jedi?

See! They told you so! First we let Adam and Eve become Adam and Steve now we have to agree to marry Qui Gon Jin to Mace Windu.

Why? Because Scotland is planning an amendment to the current Civil Partnership and Marriage laws which will allow any group purporting a belief to conduct weddings.

The government claims it’s to allow humanists to perform marriages, however the Free Church of Scotland says it will allow anyone with a belief to officiate at weddings.

More than a 100,000 such “knights” exist in the UK according to the last Census.

“There are loads of people in a diverse society like this for whom belief can mean virtually anything – the Flat Earth Society and Jedi Knights Society – who knows?” says church spokesman the Rev Iver Martin.

“I am not saying that we don’t give place to that kind of personal belief, but when you start making allowances for marriages to be performed within those categories then you are all over the place.”

I think someone should tell Rev. Martin that the Jedi Knights are a joke religion. The Jedi don’t believe that they can deflect bullets with lightsabers. And if anything there would be a schism between Republic and post Republic Jedi philosophies since one allows marriage and the other does not. In fact it’s kind of a major schism.

And all because we want to let gays marry each other. Such a slippery slope.

Why it’s like the sliding increases in the powers of Palpatine and indeed Jacen Solo when they both usurped power… Where will it stop!

Bullying Isn’t So Bad

Our Internet world is filled with tales of tragic teens who die by their own hand. Cruelly tormented daily, these teens feel sufficiently alone and alienated from society that they don’t think that things will get better. They cannot see past their daily torment and feel the need to end it all. One of the main reasons for this is the religious and cultural bullying of any child outside the norm.

You are a target if you are outside the groups that form our society in schools.

In particular this is aimed at those kids who are homosexual or queer because society excuses bullying them. It provides a variety of reasons to bully them and most of it is grounded in religion.

So while most people are about halting and stopping bullying, Herman Goodden takes a different tack. A catholic tack…

Bullying is taking up an awful lot of space in our public and private conversations, making an old duffer wonder if some sort of qualitative change really has taken place regarding this age-old . . . phenomenon. I almost called it a “problem” but that would be to buy into the current thinking about bullying, which is unrealistic, not very helpful and dishonestly coercive.

Is it? Is it really? Bullying takes up space in our conversations but does it take up more space in our conversation than celebrities who consume raw animal testicles for fame? Does it take up more space in our conversation about millionaires with intelligent feet kicking balls at a giant net? Tell me what should we consider as adequate discussion of bullying rather than an excessive one?

Certainly it’s no fun to be on the receiving end of bullying. And in extreme outbreaks there can indeed be cause to enlist the help of school and even police authorities. But in the general run of things, I don’t believe we’re ever going to eradicate bullying and, furthermore, shining a spotlight on behaviour that will usually burn itself out in a few days can do more harm than good both to perpetrators and victims by commemorating that which might more beneficially be forgotten.

Extreme outbreaks? Again what do you consider as excessive bullying? While bullying may be hard to stamp out, you can reduce it and you can stop the worst effects of it.

Some bullying does die down, some carries on. The ones that die down generally die down spontaneously and never come to light. But the one that continues is the ones we are trying to stop because it’s the ones we CAN stop.

It might be pleasant (if a little boring) to believe that children could find a way to grow up without ever coming into conflict with one another, but they never shall. In the furiously churning, soul-shaping cauldron of adolescence, young people look for models of behaviour they might want to emulate and they also look inside as certain characteristics emerge, some of which they discover cannot be jettisoned, even if it might be “cooler” to do so.

I understand the world is a terrifying place and that bullying can help “toughen” kids up. Despite what we think the world is pretty horrid and sometimes we have to teach our kids that they aren’t special or unique. It’s a fantasy we tell our kids and it’s a fantasy that many of them take to their adult life where they are stunned into reality. Perhaps a little bit of the lash is needed. Bullies exist in adult life too, dealing with bullies made me better at my job. But that’s me. I don’t expect other people to grow out of bullying as I did.

You can teach kids these lessons without feeding them to the lions of social combat. Not everyone is up to it and not everyone comes to the fight equally armed. Some people blossom into tough savvy adults at different paces. And while I think teaching our kids that they are all super special and reducing competition can sometimes look foolish I understand the need to keep kids interested without some kids running away with all the prizes. There has to be a balance between universality and rewarding excellence. And between coddling and throwing children to the wolves.

During this process young people can be mercilessly judgmental of everyone, including their peers, some of whom (for today at least) they’ll decide they like and some of whom they’ll dislike. If someone watches the wrong TV shows or listens to the wrong bands or wears the wrong shoes — these are not some blameless and inexplicable whimsy of taste as most of us regard them later in life when we are comparatively sane. No, these are social, indictable offences that must be commented upon, put down and even punished.

Or you know… If they like people of the same gender. I know where this is going…

Most instances of bullying soon blow over with no input necessary from the authorities. Sometimes the perpetrators themselves come to realize that their actions are over the top and modify their behaviour. Often, the victims discourage its continuance by standing up to their bullies — verbally or physically — or else they remove the sting of bullying by sloughing it off and not rising to such cheap and inflammatory bait.

Yes, but I solved my bully problem with cutting sarcasm and by “being a bully myself”. It is not an ideal solution to this issue. And it’s hard to solve your bully problem if what you have done is universally regarded as “Pariah Status Worthy”. Like you know…if you are gay.

It’s very hard to live with the consistent and constant bullying and feeling of an outcast if you are in that situation because you are universally despised. You cannot say that it gets better because in many cases gay people have to put up with this kind of bullying all their lives. That’s the main group who are protected when we put anti-bully laws in place.

Either of these approaches is infinitely superior to letting elders get involved, mostly because young people deal with things more directly and honestly. Once you get the authorities involved, everybody has to start playing nice and affirming one another’s okayness. Smothering in officially sanctioned indifference probably doesn’t seem to matter much if the underlying disagreement is about Justin Bieber or high-topped running shoes. But there’s a danger that the lesson being learned is that it’s wrong to ever voice disagreement or disapproval and one should always strive to please everyone else.

It’s also wrong to respond to “I fucked your mum” with “I fucked your dad and he liked it” but it didn’t really stop me from saying it aged 14. And it was also wrong for me aged 15 to solve a bully problem through a fist fight. That’s one of the direct and honest ways of solving problems after all…

It is not about Okayness. We know it’s a casual implication that Catholics aren’t given free reign to tell people what they think of their lifestyles.

And no we don’t strive to please everyone. We strive to get along.

When busybody authorities start refereeing disputes, Catholic youth are particularly at risk of being bullied (in the blandest possible way, of course) into soft pedalling important tenets of their faith. Being cowed in this way in their developing years is bad training for standing up to the bullies we all inevitably encounter as adults — whether its bosses, unions, a hectoring media with a virulently secular agenda to promote or the atheists and over-sensitive multicultural types who emerge from the woodwork at about this time of year to throw a blanket over public expression of Christmas celebrations.

Catholic Youth Are More Prone to be Bullied… I have a message…

“Away and Boil Your Head you Sanctimonious Bastard. I fucking remember being a right twat at school because I was a bully and I was fucking excellent at it because I was a relatively small bespectacled INDIAN KID in a place full of huge white guys who had never ever seen one before. I had weird food, weird hair, didn’t burn in the sun and studied a lot. And back then that was fair game. I either beat them at their game or I got beaten so I got good.”

I know the elements “Catholic Kids” wish to Hard Sell. The kind of bullshit that tore apart cities in Ireland and poisoned Scotland’s football, the kind of bullshit that allows Catholics to tell other people they are going to hell if they don’t believe in Catholic Jesus or hate on gays. And primarily it is to hate on gays and perhaps shame a few of those teenage sluts. After all if you cannot flog guilt then what sort of Catholic are you!

It is not bullying to curtail the freedom of speech of someone who is using that freedom to flog hate. If your beliefs as a religious person are unacceptable in polite society then you are not allowed to voice them. For the same reason that kids aren’t allowed to follow Catholic kids around and tell them that false worship of Mary will doom them to hell.

A near-constant element in the modern concern about bullying is the magnifying impact of the Internet and social networking gadgets which, we are told, makes it seem like the victims can never escape their tormentors. They could, though, if they’d just summon the will to unplug the darned things. Last summer my wife and I were dining at an outdoor patio and saw six young people sitting together at a table across the way, each one of them ignoring their flesh and blood friends so they could noodle away on their nefarious handheld thingies.

Yes. Allow people to be bullied off an universal forum. You hear that Ophelia!

If only you UNPLUGGED your devices, the fake profiles would stop! Take advice from this man! He knows bullying!

Seriously? Internet Harassment may not be as bad as physical harassment but it is bad. It is detrimental and it does hurt people’s feelings. It is bullying and it isn’t funny. To harass people off a common forum and a massive social tool that binds our kids together is to not get what it means to our kids.

Our kids, thankfully, made it through school just before the use of such devices became so pathetically ubiquitous. And significantly all three of them have at various times recognized that their dependence on that virtual world was becoming disproportionate and unhealthy and have made a point of going off-line for a season or two until they got their equilibrium back.

What is pathetic is the excusing of bullies, not the usage of technology. We may be nerds, but it is we who make your world work.

And my grandfather never went to school. In fact my grandmother was the one who taught him to write… English… My Burmese grandmother taught him to write and count. What was common place once isn’t any more. Now the majority of us can read and write.

And therefore we can now read! Yes! Read! Instead of talking to each other! (My great grandfather has apparently said this…)

And the internet is a tool much like a screwdriver. It can do a lot of things but it is up to the parent to MONITOR it. The effect of bullying can be reduced by actually sitting down and having a good rapport with your kids. But to say “hide from something everyone uses”?

I play Video Games a lot. Do I have to hide from people who call me Paki? Do women have to hide from all the insults (Slut, Bitch, Whore,) that gets bandied around on video games? Black people hide from their racists? No? We try and fight our bullies here, then why the fuck should we tolerate bullies in the virtual world outside this?

Young people have a way of figuring these things out. The same would apply to bullying.

Well Suicide is Painless. That’s an answer that a lot of people have “figured out” too.

Bullying is wrong, we may not be able to stop the mild stuff but we should at least stop the big stuff and teach our kids to get along so as to curtail the mild stuff. To excuse bullying in this fashion as a method for toughing up children and then implying that “Catholic Kids” are prone to being bullied for flogging their beliefs is rather tasteless. Words hurt a lot.

Hags of Lag – Repost

(Felt this was appropriate after talking to a friend… It’s a repost and I couldn’t figure how to do reposts properly.)
Videogames tend to have fewer female participants in the competitive and indeed the online scene. There are a tonne of reasons which we can get into later but the primary reason is one that everyone can guess. Well if you are part of Men Going their Own Way it’s because men’s brains are superior [Read more…]

It Gets Better – Things Can Change

Normally I stay away from Reddit, it was a bit beyond me and I heard tales of abject misogyny. But this is equal parts inspiring and tragic and makes me want to join in.

Things won’t get better unless we make it better ourselves. Despite all the doomsayers and judgements and deaths, the HIV epidemic in the MSM (men who have sex with men) community is fading away. One day we will defeat HIV, but for now reading the stories of those who survived and learning from their loss is important.

Hail to the King

Apparently the Catholic Church in the USA wants to raise awareness of freedom and wants to spend a fortnight trying to raise awareness and campaign for it. But I wanted to do a bit more poking around so I found the actual letter which the bishops wrote and I don’t think they know what freedom means.
Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

That doesn’t sound like freedom. That sounds like good old “I want to be free to impinge on other people’s freedom” which is catholic theology 101.

Conscientious Objection is only good if your conscience objects to things that are bad. The KKK are conscientious objecters against miscegenation. Their stance is not valid. The Men’s Rights Activists actively campaign against women due to faulty perceptions on feminism. Their stance is not valid.

We sadly have to live in a world where we respect people’s superstitions and treat them as equal to reality solely on the basis of their age. It’s a testament to human idiocy that we think a 2000 year old faith in a dead jewish carpenter has any meaning in today’s world where we walked on the moon and have done miracles far greater than Jesus. If your belief in ancient superstition produces a conscientious objection that is immoral, then it is well within our rights to treat you as immoral. The beliefs of many people involve Female Genital Mutilation, should we treat their beliefs as sacred or as superstitious nonsense that harms society as a whole? What about Sati? Child Sacrifice? Purdah and Hijab? Are these ideas that need to be supported or superstitions to be fought?

With this in mind let’s see what Freedoms we are impinging on?

HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services has received wide attention and has been met with our vigorous and united opposition. In an unprecedented way, the federal government will both force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching and purport to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty. These features of the “preventive services” mandate amount to an unjust law. As Archbishop-designate William Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, testified to Congress: “This is not a matter of whether contraception may beprohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.

The HHS mandate is a requirement that healthcare providers meet a basic standard of Gynaecological and Obstetric healthcare. That contraception, abortion and sterilisation are vital parts of Gynaecology and Obstetric healthcare and form a vital part of women’s rights in particular the right to control their own reproductive cycle and the rights of families as a whole to determine how many children they have as children are an economic burden mainly because we don’t live in the “good olde days” where we could just send our children to work in a factory or a mine. (Amusingly enough? It was the communists who created that law and campaigned for it. The tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto infact. Children to recieve free education and children to not work in factories. I joke that if Americans realise this they would stop their children from being educated and send them to work up chimneys if only out of spite.)

This law is not unjust so much as a basic requirement of medical services. The law from the government is very simple. Your Healthcare Service Provider Must Meet A Basic Standard. The Catholic Church REFUSES to meet a BASIC standard of healthcare and so does not make the cut. This is a law that applies to EVERYONE and what I see is a bunch of Celibate Men in Robes dictating what medicine a bunch of Non Celibate Women recieve based on the teachings of a 2000 year old book assembled by a bunch of Roman Bishops under Constantine rather than a bunch of Trained Medical Professionals With Years of Experience And a Scientific Understanding of Human Function and Physiology. You can pray to whatever gods there maybe for your unconquerable soul but you still pay a doctor to treat you rather than a priest. Why is it that a bunch of priests get to decide then what is healthcare and what isn’t?

It’s very simple. What the Church has an argument against is Gynaecology. The Vagina is Evil and Must Be Punished after all. If a insurance company or health provider didn’t offer you blood transfusions or organ donation then you would consider them to be goddamn quackery at the highest level.

There are said to be five pillars of medicine. The Catholic Church wishes to be a healthcare provider while only providing Medicine and Surgery while leaving out Social/Preventative Medicine, Obstetrics/Gynaecology and Compassion.

Christian students on campus.In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.

The California Hastings College of Law recognises the Catholic Law Students Association, it refuses to recognise the Christian Legal Society because the Christian Legal Society fails on two accounts to be a inclusive society. It discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.

For a student group to recieve public funds and official recognition, it must be open to all students regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, disability or sexual orientation. The Catholic Law Students Association meets these standards. Hell… The Muslim Law Students Association meets these standards (AKA A Gay Jewish Female to Male Transexual with no legs can go join the Muslim Law Students Association if he so chose to) but the Catholic Church wants what effectively is a hate group with
special laws to encourage hate.

Thou Shalt Not Tell a Lie, but Thou Can Tell Half The Truth.

Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.

Again… Because the government has set a basic standard of service and these organisations do not provide a service that meets basic standards. They have not driven any organisation out of business. They have merely stated that your organisations have a bunch of nonsensical rules which prevent children from recieving the best possible service in finding adoptive and foster parents. Because the Catholic Church lives in a magic world where Celibate Men in Robes are more normal than people who Love Each Other.

There are more children than permanent adoptions and the Church actively prevented people from adopting either because they didn’t have a certificate declaring them to be Husband and Wife (Because you automatically become a great parent because of the certificate!) or because they were gay. The government is completely right in denying these organisations money as per the separation of Church and State (since the overarching ideology in selecting placements is one of a primarily religious nature) and because it is a discriminatory organisation that prevents children from finding homes.

Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City enacted a rule that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and sixty other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for scores of other uses. While this would not frequently affect Catholic parishes, which generally own their own buildings, it would be devastating to many smaller congregations. It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers.

It is not discrimination against small church holdings so much as an important LAW in america about separation of Church and State. I understand this is difficult for Catholic Bishops to understand so to put it in a simple way “Render Unto Caesar”. The rules of man state that tax payer money cannot be used to promote religion. AKA You Cannot Utilise Public Property (A School) For Church Purposes. And it is embarassing that I as someone who is not american (I am a Limey) have a better grasp of the rules of America than American Bishops.

Neither the Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Watchtower, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists, Pagans or the Cult of Cthullu have any right to utilise the school for this purpose. It is not discrimination and the argument is frankly moronic to make.

Non Religious Groups By Defnition Are Not Religious And Therefore Exempt From The Separation of Church And State. At it’s heart this argument is a complaint that the American Government does not allow Catholics to spread their nonsense on public property. It boggles the mind that the Catholic Church cannot grasp this basic concept. You can run whatever you want in your churches or your homes. The schools are off limit.

Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Notwithstanding years of excellent performance by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require us to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not somehow lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. And yet a federal court in Massachusetts, turning religious liberty on its head, has since declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government somehow violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

The Catholic Church is not being disqualified again due to religious belief but because it refuses to provide basic healthcare. In addition many Catholic Humanitatrian Services are complicit in the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa. Giving them Money is not helping the HIV control efforts considering the church is still actively responsible for spreading superstition and lies about condoms in HIV ridden Africa.

The issue is that the Church and it’s organisations provide a shoddy service that can be obtained better by sponsoring any number of other charities. Religious institutions can be excluded from government contracts if they fail to meet the basic requirements of the contract which includes proper medical care for women (and men. The Church is against vasectomies too). Why should they pay the Church to produce an inferior service and reduce the choices of women who really need help.

If you don’t like abortions, if you don’t like condoms or the pill or the copper T, if you don’t like vasectomies or tubal ligations then don’t have one. No one is forcing the Pope to get the Snip. But what the Pope and his celibate flunkies are doing is forcing women to undergo a procedure (Delivery of Pregnancy) by producing an inferior service in the USA and expecting to get public funds to be shit at their job.

“In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them.”

I can only see one law that is unjust here. Being banned from ministering to illegal immigrants. That’s just a petty law enforced by people who think illegal immigrants are stealing american jobs because the average american really wants to go pick fruit all day for minimum wage. This is a petty law and a pointless one at that.

Coopting the words of Martin Luther King which was spoken during the fight against the American Apartheid where black people were treated as less than human is a callous disregard for history and indeed for the meaning. Using it to defend the right to discriminate against women and GLBT is mindbogglingly idiotic and an insult to the ideals that Martin Luther King stood for.

Freedom to spread hate and lies is not freedom. Freedom to deny women healthcare is not freedom.