PCR past banners Nolan's Pop Culture Review--now in our fifth calendar year!
PCR #206 (Vol. 5, No. 10) This edition is for the week of March 1--7, 2004.

Deadguy's Dementia

"Starsky and Hutch"
 by Mike Smith
Academy Awards Oddsverations....Indecency Hearings
 by Andy Lalino
Gay Marriage Amendment
 by Mike Scott
The Ghosts of Columbine
 by Joshua Montgomery
Collectible Card Games and You
 by Dylan Jones
P.C. Aftermath: The Response
 by Nick King
Ybor's Ups And Downs
 by Clayton Smith
The Passion in Brooksville....I Wanted the Scarecrow....FCC and the Sponge, Follow-Up....WMD At The Academy Awards?....Things I Didn't Know But Probably Should Have
 by Brandon Jones
And The Winner Is....In Other News....How Could She See Over The Wheel?....March 5th....Meet The Beatles, Part 7
 by Mike Smith
Archives of Nolan's Pop Culture Review
Archives 2004
Archives 2003
Archives 2002
Archives 2001
Archives 2000
Email PCR

Gay Marriage Amendment

I know, this is a weird one coming from me, especially since I haven't contributed to the PCR for so long, but this has been an issue that's really been bothering me lately. I listen to a lot of radio talk shows these days, and they've all been discussing it. I have a strong opinion on the subject, and wanted a place to voice it. Nolan says I'm always welcome to write about anything I want to, so here I go testing his friendship.

Should gay folks be allowed to legally marry each other?

Well, before answering that one, how about this one:

Should heterosexual people have more rights than homosexuals?

Think of tax breaks, health insurance coverages, life insurance coverages, etc. Think of the financial security afforded by marriage, and then think about the fact that two folks feel strongly enough about each other that they want to become legally bonded together, presumably, for the rest of their lives.

Do we have the right to determine who's "worthy" of that?

Some folks suggest that gay people have the right to get married, just like hetero's do... They're both given the right to marry anyone they choose, just as long as they're of the opposite sex. The fact that they have to marry someone of the opposite sex is considered to be the gay people's problem.

Is it a surmountable problem? Sure, if one of the two people decide to, and can afford to, go through a sex-change operation. Or if they marry someone they aren't interested in, of the opposite sex.

Is this what America is insisting they do in order to exercise their rights? Is that what "pursuit of happiness" is supposed to be? Surgery, or a complete sham, in order to gain married status and the advantages it offers? That's crazy.. that's like suggesting that you CAN bear arms, but only if you shoot yourself in the foot first, except much more radical, and in my opinion, more insulting.

One of the more common arguments against homosexual marriage comes from the religeous front. You know, the whole, "my-interpretation-of-the-bible-is-better-than-YOUR-interpretation" kind of thing. According to some, the bible comes right out and states that gays are an abomination to the Lord. Great, I won't argue that it doesn't say that, it's immaterial, but to counter that argument there are two things to keep in-mind:

#1- No matter what version of the Bible you read, you can see that one of the basic tenets of the Bible is that man has freedom of choice. He is able to make the decision to sin, or not, depending upon whatever he chooses to do so. Just like everyone commits a sin at some time or another, consciously or otherwise. If God is anything like the biblical portrayal, He's obviously able to take away man's freedom if he so chooses. OBVIOUSLY he's cool with it, at least to SOME degree. Or perhaps you feel that God is weak, and unable to sway the opinions of homosexuals to let them "reach the light". If homosexuality is indeed a sin, then so be it, you are apparently blessed enough to know better, and hopefully you'll never find yourself in a position where you desire to sin. God allows them to have a say in the matter, and as I seem to recall, requires that you not pass judgement on other's decisions in life. If it's a sin, they'll pay for it, just like you will pay for your sins, unless you're one of those folks that beleive there's no punishment for sins.. that's up to your own personal bias/bible interpretation/religeon. Do you presume to second-guess the workings of your deity? What about the whole omnipotent,omniscent, powerfull, existance-creating thing... you think you're better than all that? (if so.. it's time for a reality check.. if you feel that way, then you've kinda' got the religeon thing backwards.. you pray to HIM, not the other way around).

#2- Separation of Church and State. Who the heck even suggested that the government is empowered to determine whether, or not it's allowed due to religeous reasons? It's not their place. It could be construed that homosexual's insistance upon getting married illustrates a beleif that it's an acceptable thing to THIER religeous beleifs. In that regard, they would enjoy "freedom of religeon", or excercise their right to "freedom FROM religeon".

Another attack comes from folks that claim that it opens the door to allow people to marry their pets. Personally, I'd be fine with that too, considering that it's far better to let them marry an animal than contaminate the genepool, but I don't feel like animals have constitutionally protected rights that are in-danger, it's also not really a mutually beneficial undertaking. Therefore it's a non-issue. Not to mention that it would be conceived as a form of animal abuse, I'm sure, ESPECIALLY if there was any marriage consumation.

These people are not dogs, they're me and you. Sure, they have a different vision of what kind of people they choose to become intimate with than you do, (or I do, for that matter) but it's all a matter of being different. Personally, I don't feel that it justifies the concept of restricting these people from enjoying the same rights as anyone else.

Another thing, which I haven't heard mention of, but may prove to be a concern to many, is that if they were given married status, it's possible that they may want to adopt children. I don't know how the rulings turned out with regards to this kind of thing in the past.. it made all the papers awhile back where some gay couples wanted to adopt. Personally, I think that as long as they satisfy the same requirements for adoptive parents that heterosexuals do, they should be equally eligible to adopt children. Some will feel that's a risky thing, considering that gay people are often considered to be sexual deviant in nature, and could potentially molest a child. However, that's a stereotype, and it's likely that many hetero's are sexual deviants to SOME degree, but in neither case is it an accurate blanket statement.

In reality, the risk of something like that is inherent in the process: As long as someone is in the unsupervised custody of a child, it is possible that they might teach it, expose it to, or otherwise treat it in an illegal, or immoral manner. You can't expect to curtail that by saying, "Gee don't give any kids to gay people, blacks, or lawyers.. "

The arguments against that kind of thing are multitude, including things like child emotional developmental stages that teaches a child how to interpret men and women, and how to relate to them. That's kinda' silly when compared to a child in an abusive household, a one parent family where mom's a whore, or a strongly racist family. All of the arguments are based on stuff like that.

NEWS FLASH!! No one REALLY knows how to raise kids "properly".. we might have guidelines, or an inkling, but that's about it. Perhaps living in an environment where folks of the same gender possibly display the sterotypical gender-roles of both genders is a good way to promote sexual equality, rather than a household where mom does the cooking, dishes, and cleaning up, while dad goes to work, comes home to watch football, mows the yard, etc.

How about the arguments that state a gay-raised child would get teased in school? This'll only happen if you've taught your kids to look upon gays as being lesser-class citizens, remorseless sinners, or whateverelse. That'd be your fault, with failure to instill the appropriate values into your child, no one elses.

Anyways, one of the compromises that the hetero majority seems to be at least SLIGHTLY more willing to accept is a "civil union" status. Essentially, it's similar to marriage without the religeous aspects, and without the word "marriage" attached. It will be accepted by businesses, like insurance companies, HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT. So in other words, here this paper says you're joined, but it's up to everyone else to determine if that actually MEANS anything.

THAT pisses me off!! Hello?! Seperate-but-equal?! To me, that's highly insulting to everyone, hetero, or homo, alike. Seperate but equal simply doesn't work, and the very suggestion implies that we see ourselves as being better that homosexuals. Unless EVERYONE got "onboard" and honored the civil union thing, it'd be ineffectual. However, if everyone DID get onboard, why the hell not just cut out the bullshit and call it marriage?

It should make no difference that some married people are same sex, some aren't. How does it hurt anyone? Even if you're afraid to hang-out with gays or whatever your personal issue is that stops you from seeing gays as simply human beings with desires other than yours, will it matter?

My desires differ from yours. I can pretty much guarantee that. You gonna' tell me I can't be as good a person as the next guy? Or you gonna' explain to me that I don't deserve the things you get because you're more american than me, or am simply uneligible? I can't get a driver's license because I wanna' drive a motorcycle?

I lucked out, and desire women instead of men. That puts me in the "superior" category.. it's good to know I'm so much better than that riffraff.

Hey I get it...you guys are also starting to think perhaps letting gays vote is a mistake, because they might get a sexual deviant into office and turn other people gay, or eventually get this marriage thing pushed through.

Should we allow them in our workplaces? in our schools with our highly suggestible children? Should they be allowed to fall in love?

Maybe they should all die alone and leave their loved ones behind with nothing, or no living relatives to handle their estates, or look after them if they go senile one day, except for those foolish enough to band with them and their kind. Live a life where healthcare is unaffordable unless they AND their significant other pay full price for medical coverage through their respective jobs.

It's racism, pure and simple, without any conveinient skin color differences to allow you to spot them in a crowd. To those standing on the other side of the fence of this issue, Fuck off.. each and every one of you.

Even with financial considerations aside, if you don't understand what you're denying them as human beings, you don't deserve those priviledges yourself, respect included.

"Deadguy's Dementia" is ©2004 by Mike "Deadguy" Scott.  Webpage design by Nolan B. Canova.  The "Deadguy's Dementia" header graphic and background tile are creations of Mike Scott.  All contents of Nolan's Pop Culture Review are ©2004 by Nolan B. Canova.