|
Intershame On: Marc Mutty and the State of Maine |
Crushing Gay Rights
11/04/2009
Marc Mutty - against gay right, but not because he's against gays.
Yesterday, 53 per cent of voters in the state of Maine voted to overturn a law passed in May that allowed same-sex couples to marry.To the people who voted to oppose same-sex marriage, I say to you this: No matter how you attempt to justify your position, you're a homophobe and no better than those who believed in white-only water fountains.
Leading Maine's bigotry against gays was Marc Mutty, campaign chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine. At Stand for Marriage Maine's "victory" party, Mutty had this to say
"Let's be clear. What the people of Maine had to say was that marriage matters and it's between a man and a woman. This has never been about hating anyone, hating gays or anything. This has been about marriage and only about marriage and preserving it."Fuck you. No seriously, fuck you.
Let's set something straight right now - in no way, shape or form does two men or two women getting married lessen the bond between a straight couple. It's like believing that when I kiss a woman, it doesn't mean as much because two men just kissed down the road. It's a complete nonsensical argument, but one that's made over and over again in order to justify prejudice.
So I'm going to throw out a challenge - if somebody can convince me that their marriage is threatened by the marriage of a same-sex couple, I'll let them run this site for a month. That's right - a month. For that month, you can shame whoever you want. If you want to shame gay people for loving each other, you can. If you want to shame scientists for attempting to understand the world around them through logical analysis of collected data, you can do that to. If you want to shame the people in congress who have the audacity to stand up to corporations' noble quest for more profit, feel free. You can shame anything you want for a month - just convince me how same-sex marriage threatens yours (or my) heterosexual one.
Bonus points for using religion as part of your defense because everybody knows god and Jesus hates gays. Extra bonus points for clearly explaining what "preserving marriage" means. Super extra bonus points if you can explain to me how two people in love is a bad thing.
Good luck. I find defending discrimination, irrationality and hate to be rather difficult.
Do you?
Comments
- 821 days ago"if somebody can convince me that their marriage is threatened by the marriage of a same-sex couple, I'll let them run this site for a month" -- according to the letter of your argument, if an out of the closet partner divorces in order to marry their lover ;) ... CHECK PLEASE :D
- 821 days agoYou know what, marriage does deserve defense. I feel that we should ban divorce. Everyday thousands of American heterosexuals throw away their sacred marriages with lies and adultery, they are destroying the institution of marriage and violating vows taken before god. You think God hates fags? His/Her opinion on cheaters and liars seems pretty explicit to me, but then again I've actually read the bible and not merely used it to bludgeon people with my hateful interpretation of it's word.
- 821 days agoFirst of all, I'd like to say that I support homosexual marriage to an extent - that extent is limited by the parties involved in a marriage. For example, it's perfectly alright if two willing parties choose to get married and have the ceremony performed by a third willing party. However, if the third party is not willing, but is legally forced to marry the couple, I beleive that it is wrong. Secondly, I'd like to state that I am a heterosexual man who is not married and I live in Ontario, Canada. Ironically, I'll be playing devil's advocate in my defense of the Maine decision. Now, on to my argument: If the state of Maine allows same-sex couples to marry, religious institutions will be forced (against their religious beliefs) to marry same-sex couples. Failure to comply with legislation will result in these institutions having their tax-exempt status revoked and their freedom of worship limited. Freedom of religion is guarenteed by the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." By that definition, it is unconstituational to allow for same-sex marriage in any state because it would result in the violation of the first ammendmant. Also, by allowing same-sex couples to have the same pension benefits and financial rights as heterosexual couples, it would cost governments and businesses more and more money to pay for benefits. This would adversly affect my heterosexual marriage because it would mean that the benifits that are afforded to me and my familiy would be reduced or cut because of the influx of new families covered under the benefits plans. Additionally, hospital demand would rise (due to more people getting healthcare benefits), thereby increasing the price of hospital visits (using the supply and demand principle), further increasing the price of benefits. For my second point, I would like to bring up the fact that God and Jesus both hate gays. It is well established in Genesis and Leviticus in the Old Testament and in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin and that God has condemned all those who engage in homosexual activity to Hell. In order to save souls and properly evangelize, it is my duty to prevent that sin from occuring. By forcefully preventing same-sex couples from marrying, I am encouraging them to overcome their weakness. I'm not suggesting that homosexuals can't get married, I'm only suggesting that homosexual males get married to females and that homosxual females get married to males. Preserving marriage involves keeping it the way that it has been worded in US legal history. From the Defence of Marriage Act (1996) No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. This act clearly defines what Marriage is and what it should be. Any deviations would be unconstituational. Lastly, I'd like to raise an issue about two people falling in love. History has shown that this isn't always a good thing, in fact, when Helen of Troy fell in love with Paris and eventually eloped, it caused the Trojan War. By just providing one example, I have proven that love isn't always a good thing, and therefore can be bad. Note that in the case of Helen and Paris, it was the surrounding people who were affected by their choice, they themselves survived the war. These are just the basic problems that I can see with allowing same-sex marriage. Overall, it might seem like a good thing at first, but it has disasterous consequeces if it is allowed to pass. /bigotry
- 821 days agoWow, now love is wrong too. Whatever will we do? Oh, yeah, HATE is what they all want everyone to live. No, thanks. Get over yourself. WHERE is it proven that "GOD" wrote the Bible? MEN, wrote the bible. I will not waste any more of my valuable lifetime on this nonsense. But, let me say this...Life is SHORT...LOVE is ALL that matters. If you live in HATE, then THAT is what you will die with. Enjoy.
- 821 days agoYour questions have been answered directly by Jesus, my friend.
http://www.openjesus.org/2009/allowing-fags-to-get-married-is-dangerous - 821 days agoMarc Mutty's voice sounds a bit, ahem, gay. Is Mutty married? Maybe just in a Larry Craig-style marriage, at best.
- 815 days agoThe federal government and its laws should not be subject to the beliefs and opinions of members of religious groups. Just because the bible does mention homosexuality as detestable (though not actually saying explicitly that god hates gays, since that would contradict the belief that god loves all his children) does not count as a valid reason for banning gay marriage in our law books. The whole spill about taxpayers having to pay more taxes due to an influx of covered people is absurd; same-sex couples tend to be financially stable and are a quaint minority in comparison to straight couples. Also, homosexuals do not even have to have the right to marry in a church since marriage is a lawful union granted by the STATE. Forcing any church to allow a same-sex couple to marry would be an infringement of religious rights. The government does not have the ability to make churches do such a thing.
Add a Comment