Human Rights

and Human Wrongs

     The argument is often misframed in the gay marriage debate as 'i should get to love whomever i want!' I even got a facebook post from the Whitehouse- 'SHARE' here if you think people should get to love whomever they want.
     No one argues with that. The argument is -should you get to have gay up the arse or mouth where it doesn't belong conjugal sexual relations with
whomever you want and make us call that a real valid marriage .
     The answer to that  meets with a resounding "NO" or "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" if you say ANYONE you want. How about your mother, your aunt, your sister or your five year old. Of course not. So what you really mean is SHARE here if you really think anyone should be able to institutionalize formally and officially conjugal gay sexual relations for people who want to have sex up the arse or put their mouths where they don't belong.

Actually, hmmmm. No on that also. Where does that sense of entitlement come from?

There are standards of what is called 'righteousness' in some communities. Most religious communities define them and expect people to live according to them. Huge numbers of religious communities of all faiths have some admonitions against sodomy, sexual relations up the arse or splashing poking body parts where they shouldn't be. These are standards of Righteousness that are codified in scripture. People didn't make them up. They just didn't decide one day- hey, that isn't a good idea. They got the idea that it isn't a good idea because divinely inspired scripture and respected tradition have told them, that is not only a bad idea, it is dangerously wrong.

So now a very vocal loud aggressive group of people want the entitlement to a constitutional right to
up the arse sex conjugality. They are so aggressive many states said- oh what the heck lets just give it to them to shut them all up. If that's how they want to love, let 'em at it.

    But that is not what Love means to most people. That is not what God means or scripture means when it says "Love Your Neighbor."

    We have given anti-discriminatory protected status to sexual 'orientation' -only in some states- and DC- under the conclusion, whether scientifically valid or not, that an 'orientation' is some immutable that is intrinsic to a person so they cannot control it. Even that is a stretch, but lets give them that 'orientation' is something protectable.

    It is still a far far stretch to go from 'orientation' to institutionalized universally recognized gay sexual behavior  should enjoy a conjugal entitlement as a civil right.
For that one I think the majority of the country is in the 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME' poll response category.