Ok, it's been coming for a while.
What is your opinion of pro-life?
But that is not what this rant is about, this rant is about a political party.
The party is called the "Australian Party" and all members have to pledge to a set of core values.
The core values include the statement that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman, and that Australian society and government should be based on Christian values.
As an atheist, gay rights supporter and ranter, you can see how this infuriated me.
First of all, I do not think a party should be allowed to call itself the Australia Party, because I think that is a fucking piece of shit. And it shouldn't be named that. National Party fits under this category too.
But yeh, it just made me so angry, because as an atheist, christian values (God) are fucking useless. Yess treating others as you would like to be treated is good, but sex before marriage, come on (it's just an example) and you know it's just not my thing.
Then come on seriously, anti-gay rights? Like get the fuck out. I have to clarify something quickly here, I do believe that the religious union is out-dated however, marriage itself (not including the religion) more just as a sort of meaning/umbrella term, I do not think is antiquated.
But yeh, this stupid homophobic idea that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman because in the eyes of god, blah blah blah, it is only looking at the religious side of the argument. Marriage is an umbrella term and if people wish to say they are against gay marriage because of religion, they should state that, but this does not cover all meanings of the word. Under marriage, you can have "union of god's will" or "formal partnership, as decided by those partaking" The second one, sounds perfectly okay to someone against gay marriage for religious reasons because they do not associate formal partnership with god. And this is like all the English texts and various parts of life. The English Language has let us down. Marriage itself is an umbrella term and because in English we have so many things that mean the similar but slightly different thing, the meaning gets confused and that I believe is why, there is this idiocy that marriage is even vaguely related to God.
Also on a more feminism note, I have decided I want to walk up the aisle (if I do (hehe pun)) alone, because the fact that my father would have to give me away, basically as merchandise, is extremely degrading.
Like the idea that you have to be given away as a woman, oh fuck off with that.
I do not understand why the world is not all atheist; it gets rid of a lot of problems.
But then I was thinking about religion and also the "greatest story ever told". first of all STORY. and second of all, really? I actually think it's a shit story. I have read far more interesting and complex novels that are actually pertinent to my life. The nativity scene/idea is actually kinda boring. The plot is simple enough, but have you ever tried to follow a star? Or head in the direction, earth is rotating it's not going to work. Three wise men, well you know. 3 kings, obviously have nothing better to do. Frankincense and myrrh i actually realised is incense. I'd go on and adapt this now, but I don't really want to piss anyone off (oops).
Yeh
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
wall of text incoming
1. I am pro-choice, yeah sure its a life or whatever, but so are trees? people make mistakes and get pregnant, but to deny them prevention while we have the relevant technology because it is "killing a human life" is completely unjustifiable. all people make mistakes, and many people are unable to bear the burden of having a child, but pro-life says something like a stupid drunken mistake cripples the entire rest of your life if you aren't capable of supporting a child. even putting it up for adoption creates a huge emotional scar on both parents, especially the mother, who is forced to contain the baby for 9 months and thus would probably develop an emotional bond with it. (it happened to a family member of mine, a bhuddist who wasn't allowed abortion for spiritual reasons) take an example, two people who have never met before, a man and a woman, meet in a bar after an excrutiating time looking for a job in the job market. they are both undesirable for employers for whatever reason, thus not getting a well-paying job ever, thus being severely depressed, thus turning to alcohol with what little money they have left. when they meet each other, half-drunk, their similiarities are enough that they hit it off and end up having sex. neither of them has a condom, because their low self-esteems mean they never think they'll have sex, and they certainly wouldn't sober. but they do anyway.
modern society should pride itself on its attitude towards it's members and the level of comfort it provides them - denying them something like abortion, which could severely reduce every kind of pressure imaginable on the parents - just because the people who actively deny it didn't make the same mistake, or would be less likely to do it (ie people who don't get drunk and have sex) - is just pure human wickedness, putting oneself above others because they didn't make a mistake. it also reflects humanity's desire to have control over others, imposing rules about how other's lives will pan out based on their own values.
I use the whole drunk pregnancy thing as an example cause it seems like the most likely, idk about other possibilities but. whatever. you get the gist of it from the ~10000 lines of text I just wrote.
2. most every value widely held today is outdated (I must be pretty naive or something). but values should be contextual, not given to us in a book written in a time when the basic foundations of modern life (technology mostly) were not even concievable to the cleverest intellectual of the time. also using a misnomer such as 'the australian party' is wrong on so many levels.
3. your argument, the english language lets us down, is wrong. whilst it is true that english contains the largest vocabulary of any language by a factor of about 3 to the next most vocabulous language, which is due to a number of reasons - for example different deriving from the same word at different times due to borrowings from other languages in which the derived word has a slightly different meaning ie, wish from old english wyscan and want from norse vanta/*wanaton (from viking invasions/settlement of england), both from the protogermanic root *wuns which roughly means 'desired' - it is wrong to blame the english language and definitions. [why do i know all that, i'm so cool] many non-english speaking countries hold the belief that same-sex marriage is not actual marriage, so that kind of nullifies your point. also, you provide a counter-example: you say that the fault is english's large vocabulary with many available distinctions for one term then cite a single term with many definitions as the problem. [this is just arguing technicalities and semantics though, so it doesn't actually mean anything]
but yeah, i agree with everything you say pretty much, except that one thing about english letting us down.
on a side note thats always something that's bugged me, when english teachers use that, 'english lets the author down' is like blaming a paintbrush because it doesn't automatically produce the best paintings, even with amazing quality paints. a great writer is very aware of the limitations of the english language, and uses this to their advantage - defining things through lack of definition and allowing the audience to fill in the blanks, techniques like that. ie ts eliot (imo) is a great writer, even though / possibly even due to the fact he says 'it is impossible to say exactly what i mean' his poems are very connecting with their audience. idk.
but whats with all the one million word responses these days... i typed it all up theres no way im not hitting publish, but...
Yeh, I get where you are coming from and I sorta got my point across shittily.
I mean, while marriage was originally a religious union, now it is signified as more of a formal partnership (in Australia, I dunno about other places), but the history we have means the term 'marriage' and 'partnerships' aren't really the same; like you say your married or you have a legally bound partner, it sounds different. My point essentially was, that maybe that is a cause, that the idea that marriage is a religious union screws with people's heads. Either way, it should be made legal.
just gimme rights, i wanna get married
>.<
hui, did you mean pro-choice in the last sentence? and no, I mean with the collaborative effect religion has had, it would be easier if they now became atheists. because rationality is undervalued and if you are an atheist, the rationality of the situation is simple and life goes on, because you have to take responsibility for your own situations. Either way, a lot less people would have died historically of stupid reasons.
Post a Comment