Of opening cans of worms and marriage equality

I’m going to open up a can of worms – I know it. I don’t know how else to begin this post other by saying some of you will be offended, some of you will think I’m wrong and some of you will think I’m disgusting for holding this opinion. And that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I’m entitled to mine.

Today’s blog post is about an overwhelming topic in the media because of the United States’ court proceedings – gay marriage/marriage equality.

So as most of you know Prop 8 was brought before the court yesterday in a case that moves to legalize gay marriage (henceforth referred to as marriage, gettin’ hitched, tyin the knot or shackling oneself to the old ball and chain) which will be announced towards the end of June. Now this movement in government is having a profound effect in not only the US but in Canada as well. So many people that I know (and thankfully so) are large supporters of marriage, regardless of religion – I also know people who don’t agree with it personally but have the common decency to not allow their opinions to rule someone else’s life.

I think the entirety of having ONE religion dictate who and who cannot be married to be incredibly flawed. I realize that at the time that these laws were created we were living in a largely different era. This law made sense when women were considered subordinate to men and skin colour dictated your worth. So it is beyond me that in this day and age when women have assumed equal status to men (for the most part – but that’s a whole different can of worms) and race does not mean you’re worthless that sexuality dictates right to marriage.

I think my biggest issue with this entire argument is that we’re setting ourselves up to never have peace by being for and against. If you think about it, the issue of marriage, outside of religion, is just personal politics. We’re not arguing that all marriages be had in a religious church – just that they be recognized as a legal union by the government. I wonder then, if there is no religious component other than the personal beliefs of the individuals against it, why is it a religious issue? This way of getting married is the same way that those who are not married in a religious ceremony get hitched, so does that mean that their union is not legally binding as well? Why stop discriminating there? What about the transgendered, those with no gender? What about those who are not married under “God” in the traditional sense?

It bothers me so incredibly much that someone’s personal religion – a choice they made (you can chose to be a Catholic, Christian, Buddhist) trumps someone’s choice of who they marry even outside of the religious ceremony.  This assumes that every single human being falls under the same religious belief as you and that’s just not true. Religious diversity is huge and while it’s an intensely personal commitment with a higher power it has given way to the right to be intolerant to others. I cannot contest your relationship with your higher power because that is discrimination, however you can impose your relationship with a higher power on me and that is protecting the sanctity of marriage for everyone?  How can someone not see the incredible flaw in that logic?

This way of thinking always excludes someone and always leaves people in the wrong. Everyone has the right to choose how they live and as much as I may not agree with the way someone lives their life I respect they have the right to make their own choices. I don’t think people realize that respecting someone’s right to make a commitment to someone for their lives does not have to go against your religious beliefs. You can still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman based on your religion AND respect someone’s ability to have the same LEGAL rights in a union.  

Why? How? Whaaaaaat?

They are not getting married under the same conditions as you. Simple as that.

It’s time that people stop being personally offended when something “threatens their religion”. Your religion is your personal commitment with your higher power – not everyone else’s.   Don’t deny someone’s legal rights outside of religion in an attempt protect what you deem is good. 

Dad wants option of pulling kids out of class based on lesson topics - Headline

This story literally just popped up and it really makes me upset to read. I realize that that's my opinion and where I do respect the fact that he the right to his own opinion, I truly believe this is where ignorance is born.

This Ontario dad wants to recieve advanced notice on all lesson plans in order to be able to pick and choose what his children will be taught. The topics of marriage, family and sexuality are what he wants notice on as he doesn't want his kids to be taught things that contradict his religious beliefs. Now I'm all for freedom of religion and freedom to practice any religion you choose, but not allowing your children to be exposed or to hear or learn about anything that opposes your belief is where ignorance stems from. Ignorance isn't just created one day, it's taught.

The father stated that because he pays his taxes and Canada is a free country that this should be allowed. What's more disturbing was his quote, "My children are my own. I own them. They don't belong to the school board." Ack. You don't own your children, they're not objects; it's alright to pass your beliefs down to them, but don't make them suffer for it.

No they don't belong to the schoolboard but teaching them strictly Christian values and never letting them hear about anything else isn't going to help them be better Christians. The father is saying that if he's denied that the school board is discriminating against his religion.

His kids are both in public school and when asked if he would move his kids over to seperate school he stated, "Why should I send my kids to another school? I pay my taxes...I don't see why somebody else's discrimination should cause me, should influence where I send my children. Not in a free country."

This is where I'll come across a little snippy. Yes, you do pay taxed, as does every parent in that school - what he fails to realize is that micromanaging his children's education for the sake of religion is given his kids special treatment. Not because they're Christians, but that teacher is going to have to curb the lesson plan for those two kids, taking time and energy that could have gone to teaching the rest of the class. I do not agree with declaring discrimination when you're the one making the choice to keep your kids in public school and demanding an education that's different from everyone else. The general public is not Christian, the general public is non-denominatonal as I believe public school should be. I believe that education should exist outside the scope of religion. I reliaze that's unpopular opinion, but it's true. You should learn everything the same as the other person, so if those kids do truly adopt the Christian belief system, they know where non-Christians are coming from. Plugging your ears and saying "lalalalalalalala" when someone says something you don't agree with is ridiculous and to demand the education system allow you to do that, even more so.

By all means please, be proud of your religion - but don't make everyone have to work a little harder because you don't want your children to know about anything outside what you agree on.

Story from the CP24 Article http://www.cp24.com/dad-wants-option-of-pulling-kids-out-of-class-based-on-lesson-topics-1.950047#ixzz265xFk4a9 

Todd Akin: Because you can't get pregnant without consent

I was going to avoid this topic with a ten foot pole as the media seems to be content with pounding the crap out of this man, but as Todd Akin announced he was staying in the race; he also announced that “his party overreacted a bit” and “it was just a word in the wrong place.”

The background; in a television interview Republican Congressman Todd Akin made the comment, “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare [impregnation of a woman from rape]. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, ”after being asked what his thoughts on abortion under any circumstances, including rape.  He is obviously a master of the female reproductive system.

What could have meant? One thought could have been that he meant cases where a woman was raped; having had a man put his penis in her vagina and ejaculate without protection. The other being that in cases where a woman was raped in the above mentioned that if she were to get pregnant somehow an element of consent would be there.

Either way, Akin’s message clearly resonates; the female body will stop a pregnancy if she is raped. I think that’s an absolutely terrifying message to put for to women. We are human, we don’t come with a failsafe in case of rape. If your body has ovulated and you’re able to conceive and are raped, unless counter measures (Plan B) are taken, you can get pregnant, with consensual and non-consensual sex. Instead of accepting women’s bodies as being selective in the child-bearing process, why don’t we look at the fact that most women won’t go to a doctor or clinic for Plan B because they’re ashamed of their sexual assault? Why don’t we look into the fact that some women can’t afford Plan B after they have been sexually assaulted?

Akin stated that, “by taking this stand, this is going to strengthen our country. It will strengthen the Republican Party.”

This will strengthen the anti-feminist rape-culture that’s dominating our society both in Canada and the United States. By creating this “Failsafe” guarantee in women you’re insinuating that women have been created to be raped. Look, look, even if you do rape her, she’s not going to get pregnant, her body doesn’t allow that. Are you kidding me? Instead of focusing on the what a woman’s body can and can’t do, why don’t you focus on the fact that we’ve reared a culture that jumps to blame the victim before the rapist, before, during and after the rape.

We blame the woman/ for how he/she looks, what he/she was saying, her level of intoxication before the rape occurs. We blame the man/woman for not fighting hard enough, not saying no enough, not calling for help enough during the rape. We blame the male victims for being weak for calling it rape afterwards and we blame women for choosing abortion after they’ve been raped and have gotten pregnant. This is a culture that justifies the acts in all its stages, and chooses to elect asshats like this to back that thinking up.

**UPDATE
Will be posting a second post about rape culture, feminism and rape.