Wednesday, April 22, 2009
I haven't posted anything except my Sunday Readers in a while. It's not been my intention to be away from writing, but I've been pulled in so many different directions lately that when I do get some free time I tend to want to vegetate. I still enjoy reading your blogs though and I'm sure I'll be back to posting regularly soon.
I received some email over the weekend that I wanted to comment on from Serge Crespy. It must have been a response to last week's Reader because I can't think of any other reason why he'd send it to me. I suppose it didn't get published in the paper, so maybe he was hoping I'd give him the spotlight. I'm not really sure.
You can read the email below and form your own opinion, but what I really wonder is why all of these cranks use such awkward language.
from Serge Crespy
date Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:20 PM
subject "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONFUSION"
Appearing in "The New York Times - The Opinionator"
4. 54. April 12th, 2009.... Orlando Sentinel & Other U.S Newspapers:
Dear New York Times Editor:
Same-Sex marriage confuses Human Rights; the exclusive right of humans to "CREATE", not, "MUTATE"! Creation of the human species, when scientifically produced in a petri-dish, leaves no doubt whatsoever that only an ovum "married" (joined / combined / shared / matched) with sperm results in an embryo (LIFE). Any attempt to combine an ovum to another egg, or, to "unite" sperm to another's sperm is simply a sub-conscious attempt to "mutate" LIFE. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
A rebuttal to a reader commenting to the above view / Orlando Sentinel:
.... It appears that for some individuals dissecting the basic nature of man and woman for personal gratification has become "A Human Right". We all have the right to "CREATE" and the right to "MUTATE", Robin; thankfully, for hundreds of thousands of years, the majority of men and women have chosen the former lifestyle; the "traditional" approach to enjoying and creating (practicing for) "LIFE". There is a difference, Robin; a gyroscope and a compass can assist greatly in the understanding of sexuality.
(contact information removed)
So, let's start the dissection. I hate to break it to you, Serge, but humans do mutate. All species mutate. It's an important part of our evolutionary process. Mutations can be detrimental, and often they're quickly weeded out of they are, but they can also be beneficial, ensuring the survival of the species. Mutation isn't a pejorative word in that sense. Humans have no rights to or not to mutate. They just do.
Creation of life doesn't have to involve an egg or a sperm. Many species replicate without sexual organs or sexual offspring. Humans, of course do require eggs and sperm. That's pretty well known by most people. What's not known by most people is that creating offspring is "marriage". I think most people call that sex.
It's also true that if you told most people they were "married" after having sex they'd not be happy about that suggestion. Humans don't need marriage to procreate. Marriage is a human invention that benefits our society, for the most part, but marriage does not have to lead to procreation just as procreation doesn't have to lead to marriage.
I've been married for almost five years and have yet to create offspring. If my eggs combined with my husband's sperm they did not survive due to some defect. My husband and I have no desire right now to have children so we use birth control. Does this make me wrong, wrong, wrong? Do you believe the only point of marriage is procreation? What about companionship, love, the sharing of resources, or any of the other reasons why people get married?
Same-sex couples don't cause mutations any more than opposite-sex couples. In fact, they might cause mutations less if they create less offspring. I don't understand your insistence that sex between two people of the same sex is a mutation. It's not. Or if it is, it's a mutation that exists throughout nature. Do you know there are species that are only one sex. Or that are all both sexes? How does that make you feel, Mr. Crespy to know that there are entire species of same-sex fish? How did that come to be? Certainly humans had no part of making them the way they are today. So, if we use nature as an example, sexual relations between the same sex are not unnatural.
Also, why does everyone have to produce offspring? Certainly there are enough people in the world producing children that a subset of the populate has no need to reproduce. Do single bachelors need to produce offspring? Is it a requirement for everyone to couple up and produce offspring? No.
Perhaps giving homes to children needing parents is a better alternative to people who have no desire for biological children of their own, if they want to have children through another means. Why would anyone have a problem with that idea?
Okay, I must confess I don't understand how a "gyroscope and a compass can assist greatly in the understanding of sexuality". Please explain this to me because obviously I know so little about sex that I can't even begin to understand the correlation, at least not with a little peak into your mind on the matter.
I also wasn't able to find the articles you referenced. Links would help in that matter. There don't seem to be any articles published by The Opinionator (a New York Times blog) on April 12th.
But here's a thought for you. Maybe instead of coming up with absurd arguments against same-sex marriage you should instead think a little bit about the people you're trying to block from marriage. What are the real reasons you think gay sex is wrong? Because you don't like the image? Because it offends your sensibilities? Because it's against your religion? None of those reasons are good reasons for impinging on the rights of others. Our society has evolved, perhaps even mutated, to accept that people are different and there is no benefit to making everyone conform to one standard. Not long ago we as a society did terrible things to people that were different from us, and we still continue to meddle in the business of others. But why is it okay for you to dictate what you think marriage should be but not okay for anyone else to dictate how you should live your life?
Wait, did I say not long ago? Because we're still doing terrible things to people that are different than us. We still find others to blame because they are different or it is convenient. We dehumanize them by calling them terms like mutants or witches. It leads to the behavior displayed in the video below.
My readers should know that it's very graphic and shows several people being beaten and burned. These people were accused of being witches, unnatural, unacceptable by their society. Is this really the type of behavior we want to endorse?
I cried after watching this video because it was so disturbing. How could anyone beat helpless people and burn them to death? Is their fear so strong about someone who's different? Rationally these people were not witches, even if they believed themselves to be so. They had no power to curse or bless. Rationally we know that if our neighbors look at us funny it doesn't not cause us to lose our jobs or miscarry our children. Rationally we know that allowing gays to marry will not lesson our own marriages or cause the world to end. It will not cause our children to be born with three arms. It will allow gays to marry. It will allow them to make decisions when their spouses are ill. It will allow them to share insurance and social security. It will not make anyone anything less than what they are today.