Religion, freedom of speech, and equal rights.

   So I've mentioned before that PE is a place where I can jot down my thoughts to an audience that has no expectations of me, so naturally I touch on some sensitive subjects, Today is one such example.

   Recently with the elections in high gear racing to an indifferent end, there has been a huge clash of "Religion vs. Gay rights" Which firstly, Is a fucking stupid thing to be looking at in the first place. Which I have full intent of explaining throughout this article.

    To make a sweeping generalization for sake of descriptive ease, the right wing conservative Christians have been saying that funding, and discriminating against homosexuals is an expression of "Freedom of speech." they have also boycotted any company that supports equal rights and has gone to great lengths to support companies that oppose equal rights.

   On the other hand, Homosexuals have been expressing their beliefs and funding pro-gay organizations and they've openly boycotted any company that oppose equal-rights.

   So, naturally both sides paint themselves as a victim, Gay people saying "let us marry!" and Christians (who I use because they are the primary anti-gay religion in America) saying "Let me express my freedom of speech and religion!"

   I hate to bring this up again but a perfect example is the whole Chik-fil-a fiasco. The problem with this entire circumstance and the claim of religious freedom, Is it's being used as a tool for oppression. This is to say, in the land of the free, all are to be equal under the law, this is what we were founded on, particularly religious freedom. This means if someone wants to not have a religion they have that right. Continuing along this train of thought, it's not hard to say that doctrines in religion and whats considered heresy or sin should be kept to that religions followers. Thus, If gay people want to get married, it is not the job nor privilege of religious doctrine to say otherwise.

   If that's the case, then why does this argument come up? To explain simply, even if the Religious party understands the above statement, they believe they have a right to protest and chastise whatever they desire. This is true to some degree, and this is were it gets tricky. It is legal to protest anything for any reason, however it is not legal to cause emotional or physical duress. Unfortunately, the Homosexual community has been bullied. I use the word bullied, because it's appropriate, a minority is being physically assaulted and emotionally traumatized to the point of suicide due to this conflict.

   Let me paint the same concept of "Religious freedom" that the right wing, anti-gay Christians are portraying with a different religion that's less common, as this is about -religious- freedom, not Christian freedom.

   Juan, has always been fascinated with ancient Aztecs, after years of contemplation and meditation Juan decides the religion of the Ancient Aztecs makes a lot of sense, and connects with him very spiritually. So, at the spring equinox, Juan takes his sons daughter, and Stabs her in the chest in a ritualistic human sacrifice.

   Obviously, this is a rather dramatic example of religious freedom, particularly because Christians don't practice human sacrifice. However, the principle is very much the same. In the example above, Juan was expressing his religious freedom, and negatively enforcing it on his Grandchild, which violates the Grandchild's  first right, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This directly mirrors our current situation. Right now Gay people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they want equal health care, equal employment, equal housing, equal parenting rights and equal marriage rights. A failure, or lack in any of these depreciate both liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

   Earlier, I mentioned these arguments were "A fucking stupid thing to look at." and that's for two reasons, Firstly the above dissertation, and secondly both sides, are wasting good money, time and energy, arguing about something that has no argument. that time money and effort could be put too creating jobs, feeding the poor, fixing our healthcare debt, etc. instead, judging by actions- which speak louder then words. Hating gays is more Christian then feeding the poor and destitute. It is both insulting to the institute of Christianity to act as such, and Homosexuals who receive such treatment.

That being said I am going to continue and debunk each and every single reason I've heard against gay marriage

1.) "Marriage is defined as one man and one woman."
   Definitions are a matter of language and semantics. this is an issue of 1297 rites that Marriage attain over Civil unions, as of 2010,  the definition of marriage changed. ducere uxorem, was a word used for when a Man married, it never specifies the partner, nubere alicui - was the term women used when wedding, again never specifying a partner. In fact the only time marriage between same sex couples was outlawed, is between 195AD and now, a long period, but that's directly equivelent to the length of time Christianity has been legal, as it used to be illegal as well.

2.) "Homosexuality is Unnatural"
   Actually, homosexuality has been found in over 400 different species, and that's just the ones we notice. furthermore, there is a hypothesis that proposes the idea Homosexuality is natures population control, so that the predatory species doesn't breed to much more then its food, there is another theory that supports this hypothesis. This theory believes that the mothers body builds up an immunity to hormones that need to be present in the womb for a male to develop a heterosexual sex drive, this is supported by data showing that men who have older brothers and sisters are more likely to be Homosexual. this theory, is still being researched further.

   3)The bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong.

   Firstly, this was explained in the above article. but to continue on the matter, the bible also said a man can be married to his wife, and any number of concubines, as well as a rape victim is forced to marry her rapist. etc.. I could go on and on, but I don't think I have to.

   4.) "If you let gay people marry, next people will marry dogs."

I have read two occasions, in world wide news of people marrying odd things, neither were linked to homosexuality, one woman married the eifle tower, another married a dolphin. meanwhile in the millions of gay people that are allowed to marry in other countries, no such things have happened.

   5.)It will encourage other people to be gay.
Sexuality doesn't work that way, if it did gay people spending countless years around straight people would become straight. subsequently, even if it did- who cares?  

   6.) It will lead to other crazy behavior.
There is no proof to substantiate this claim, subsequently even if it did, that's what other laws are for, if a law isn't being broken, why care?
   7.)Marraige isn't open to change.
Marriage has changed alot, like back in 200Ad like I mentioned previously, or when interracial marriage first happened, or when we stopped arranging marriages, or we stopped bringing dowry's
   8.) The sanctity of marriage will be broken
Those other changes didn't break it, and after seeing 56 hour weddings.. I'm pretty sure it's already broken.

I'm sure there's more, but I make my case.