I should be Secretary of the Treasury. Throughout all the economic insanity as of late, I've known exactly what needs to be done to solve it. It's not that financial institutions need rescuing or that home-owners need help with mortgages, it's much more simple than that: California's Proposition 8 needs to pass. Don't see the connection? Let me explain.
When California's Supreme Court decided to lift the ban on gay marriage in their state, I panicked. I, being married, went straight to an appraiser, only to be told what I already suspected: my marriage had been sharply devalued. Overnight I saw my marriage drop about 70% - and I was one of the lucky ones. I heard of marriages in Rhode Island and Ohio dropping as much as 98.5% not one minute after California said (in effect), "We don't care about basic economics." It was the beginning of a national catastrophe.
So I had to do it. I had to sell off what was left of my marriage. I know, I know...it was selfish. But honestly, I didn't want to fall into an even deeper hole as my marriage's value declined further and further. I had to salvage what was left so I could invest in (perfectly legal) Vegas drive-thru chapels.
Anyway, it should now be clear why the passing of Proposition 8 would save our economy. Once gay marriage is banned once again in California, more people will be attracted to buying up marriages and fewer investors will want to sell. Marriage values nationwide will increase and we will be back on track.
It's a crazy world out there and these are crazy times. But hey, as long as people who are different than me don't get the same rights and privileges as I do, I'll be juuuuuust fine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well, actually, the proven system was working just fine until they started delving into an unproven system: giving mortgages that never should have been given.
"With the way things are going, this should work out just fine," said a lot of really smart bankers.
There were a very few backwards, unprogressive, intolerant, back-hills bankers who said, "Wait a second, we've never given these types of mortgages to these types of borrowers before. And we haven't given them for a reason: the proven system works. Our sound mortgages have brought progress and stability for as long as any of us can remember. Sure, some of them fail. But those that don't fail bring benefits not just to those who hold the mortgages. They bring prosperity for the entire economy. Handing out these types mortgages looks like a road to trouble."
"Not so," said the smart, progressive, bankers. "We've got it all figured out. We know what we're doing. Trust us."
"How do you know," said the backwards bankers.
"Some places have already started giving out these mortgages. Business is booming. What could possibly go wrong?"
You can only go so far with an analogy. The above is my (pathetic) attempt at a clever rebuttal. But I want to be clear about a couple of things.
In no way do I intend to demean those who are gay. I honestly do my best to respect everyone regardless of how they live their lives. I simply believe that the traditional family has always been the foundation of a strong society. Changing that paradigm puts our society on a course that leads at best to the unknown, at worst to the unimaginable.
Can a bailout save a failed society?
Ah, fear of the unknown. Not a bad argument. There will definitely be challenges when American society finally grows up and gives equal rights to gays. As a parallel, just look at the pre-Civil Rights Movement United States. Society was functioning. Things were comfortable and convenient (for the majority). But then things were shaken up when African Americans took steps towards equality. People were KILLED over civil rights. And while racism certainly exists today, you'd be hard-pressed to find an intelligent person who believes black skin means inferiority (and therefore fewer entitlements). Our society can never progress if we say the status-quo, with all of its faults, is good enough.
Well, fear of the unknown wasn't really my point (as far as I'm concerned, the result is not unknown), although I see how my analogy can come across that way. The primary intent was to show how backwards it is that burden of proof seems to lie on those who don't want the change.
As far as the Civil Rights Movement parallel, it's absolutely apples and oranges. Marriage is what it is: a union between a man and a woman. Gays are not being denied that privilege--they are welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex. I realize they have no desire to, and I wouldn't expect them to. But that is the definition of marriage. Those in favor of gay marriage are talking about redefining a long-standing foundation of society. I'm not opposed to giving gay couples rights. But I believe that changing the definition of marriage will be detrimental to society.
The main issue I have with many who are in favor of allowing gay marriage is that they think that anyone who is against gay marriage is discriminatory against gays. That simply is not the case. Are we discriminating against 15-year-olds because we won't allow them to have a driver license? Are we discriminating against 34-year-olds because they aren't allowed to run for president? Are we discriminating against Iran when we tell them they can't have a nuclear weapon? As a society, we have to decide what will ultimately help or hurt us. Yes, we disagree, so the best we can do is majority rules.
I don't have a problem with those who disagree with me and are in favor of gay marriage. But don't tell me that being against gay marriage in and of itself makes me discriminatory against gays.
This is fun. I think I can stretch this analogy even further from its original intent.
Our financial institutions are learning a lesson about funding unqualified home buyers with sub-prime mortgages. Looks like the old stodgy bankers were right. Lowering the bar is a sure-fire recipe for economic disaster.
Regarding the marriage issue, perhaps some of our more conservative-minded friends are on to something. Maybe a higher standard should also apply to the issuance of marriage licenses, kind of like the traditions of the old stodgy banker.
Let's see, what requirements could we set? A commitment to longevity, yes. No children for the first five years, perhaps. Intimate experience (compatibility testing) before the contract is signed, probably. Mandatory weekly sessions with a licensed marriage therapist, definitely. Background checks. Income verification. Character reference interviews. Oh, how about this one: heterosexuality! (Nah, society as a whole will never agree on that one. Plus, “It’s not logical, Captain.”)
The list could go on. But it should be whatever is best for society. I mean, at the moment the divorce rate is what-around 50%? Who is responsible for all of these marriages? Think of the children!! Surely we can do better than that.
It appears we have been issuing marriage licenses too freely. Time to buckle down, lest come the day of societal ruin. The institutions performing marriages have been doing so irresponsibly, and I for one won’t stand for it.
Now, to which social or government entity might we turn to rationally pen and enforce such standards?
Josh: I only acknowledged the "fear of the unknown" argument because, in my mind, it was the only legitimate one. Opponents of gay marriage constantly refer to "destruction of the family" and "devaluation of marriage" as reasons for their opposition. But, as I hoped to address in my blog, I find that unfounded and offensive. I have yet to hear one good explanation of how (A)Gay Marriage leads to (B)The End of the World, or whatever it is being predicted. Once gay partners can marry, is there going to be some "Gay Revolution" that sweeps the nation, making heterosexuals everywhere turned off by the idea of starting a family? Are more people going to suddently become gay just for the hell of it? And if/when this revolution happens, are gay couples everywhere going to terrorize straight couples and families?
We obviously have a different perspective on this issue being similar to civil rights. To me it's clear that we are prohibiting basic freedoms because of an arbitrary characteristic (in this case, sexual orientation). I realize that some don't see that as arbitrary. But even if you are under the impression that homosexuality is a choice, let me ask: Do we block people who drink alcohol from obtaining driver's licenses? Do we not allow idiots to vote? I'm most definitely not saying gays are idiots, I'm just trying to appeal to the sort of argument anti-gay marriage activists use.
Religions and others so actively speaking out against gay marriage have picked this battle because it relates to homosexuals - which threaten the legitimacy of their organizations (and not the functionality of society). And that, to me, is enough to call it discriminatory.
First of all, let's be clear: I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice. In fact, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could think so for a multitude of reasons, but that is probably another blog entry itself.
Having established that fact, your response is exactly what I don't understand. Why does the burden of proof lie on those who want to remain with the ancient, established, foundational practice of marriage? Shouldn't you have to prove to me that gay marriage will not be a negative for society? I would think so.
"But that's dodging my questions," you say. Well, this article from the NYT is very similar to my line of thinking.
Secondly, I guess I don't understand what "basic freedoms" are being denied to gays by not allowing them to marry. If freedoms are being withheld from gays, that should stop. If you consider marriage a basic freedom, that's fine. But marriage is what it is. You are in favor of changing its definition, and I am opposed. Simple as that.
As far as religious institutions being motivated by a fear of losing their legitimacy, I can't disagree more. Religions will always find a way to legitimize themselves. Gay marriage will be no different than challenges they have had in the past. I believe the motivation for the majority of religious organizations is a true concern for society.
The burden of proof lies on those against gay marriage because our society has become increasingly accepting of homosexuality, and the opponents are the ones blocking further progress. You have to have reasons to justify inhibiting the lives of others. Of course, you've said you don't believe there's any inhibition involved because gay people are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite sex (although you did acknowledge that it's a silly notion). To me that's like saying men are perfectly free to bear children - it's meaningless and therefore not a freedom at all. Positive freedoms can't be given to those who can't possibly use them.
And you're right - those asking for a change in society must also have reasons. Here are some: 1. As human beings, these people should not be treated differently because of something so arbitrary. 2. Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of official family units in our society (including 2-parent families), which most seem to agree make up its foundation. 3. They should have the freedom to pursue happiness(blah blah blah), which marriage would promote without infringing on others' rights.
In other words, advocates for gay marriage already have offered their answer to "Why?" It's time to hear an evidence-based answer to "Why not?"
I know I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that gay marriage, by definition, threatens the stability of our society. I believe that prohibiting gay marriage, by definition, is discriminatory. We both want what's best for the world we live in, we just have different perspectives of how to attain that. And so goes the cliche, we'll agree to disagree.
Post a Comment