Friday, April 17, 2009

More hypocracy, still making me sick

I wrote this as a response to a livejournal entry regarding gay marriage being barred because of the way marriage is defined by the bible and the dictionary:

You are so right, there is no reasonable way to defend anti-gay marriage positions. Here's a few things I wanna say:

1) In response to the "Next they'll be marrying dogs" comment: Marriage between two men or two women is between two consenting adults. Therefore the bestiality and the pedophilia arguments are null, because so long as it involves two consenting adults, there is no reason to forbid marriage. It's against our very constitution to do so; but, as with the Bible, people pick and choose what to apply to themselves and then scold others for doing so.

2) Christian's didn't invent marriage. Neither did Webster. Even if you argue that Marriage as it is today is a Christian tradition (which it hardly is), there are several holes, the largest of which being separation of church and state. Let's keep God out of the courtroom, except at weddings? I don't think so. Also, just because it might be a Christian tradition, traditions are not the sole property of those who establish them. Look at Christmas and Easter. On each of these days Christians celebrate their own religion with ceremonies and traditions set down by pagans and hedonistic Romans. Jesus wasn't born under a cracked-out pine tree (he likely wasn't even born in winter), nor was he carried from his tomb in a wicker basket carried by a giant pink bunny. I don't have a problem with this; I have a problem when Christians try to privatize their own traditions when so many of theirs are adapted from completely contradicting beliefs. My mother told me that the purpose of Marriage is to receive God's blessing for their union. That is true for some people: for others, Marriage is to commit and join to someone for life, to show how much you love them, and to become a single legal entity. God has nothing to do with it for a lot of people. Heterosexual atheists get married all the time. The law has no problem with that. Therefore, the argument of Marriage being Christian tradition is 100% irrelevant to the law. We have freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, and yet we don't have the freedom to join to the ones we love, because someone else disapproves of it.

I am a Christian myself. The reason I used exclusive pronouns in my above speech is because I hate to associate myself with the general Christian population. We believe in the same God, follow the same commandments, and hold the same savior and spirit in our hearts. Beyond that, I must say that we agree on little else. If Christians were to take the time to read and understand the Bible in it's entirety, they would realize that it does not condemn homosexuality. For anyone who would throw leviticus at me, I say: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:4. Laviticus, also known as "The Law," stopped being "The Law" when Christ died for us. No longer do we need to follow those old rules to the letter (though not all of them are bad, and we can learn from them). The only way into heaven is through Christ, for everyone who believes in him. To uphold The Law is to deny Christ's sacrifice. To those who would throw Sodom and Gamora at me: Sodom and Gamora were inhabited by rapists, pedophiles, zoophiles (bestiality), nymphomaniacs, and there was serial fornication everywhere. It was all out sexual Hedonism. While homosexuality was also present, it was not what condemned the two cities. Heterosexuality was there too. Many Christian presentations tend to warp this story so that the cities seemed to be inhabited only by men who regularly have sex with each other. That's called Blasphemy.

A rant and squee about the upcoming Half Blood Prince movie

I, for one, am psyched about the movie, and approve of most of the changes they seem to have made going by the trailers.

By the looks of the new trailer, they've changed a lot of things, and added some lines and even entire scenes that weren't in the book, but I think it will actually work with this one. I kind of thought the book was too short, so some additional action would be welcome if you ask me.

I think this is the key difference: The movie is designed to get us pumped up for Deathly Hallows, so it's really badass and high-thrill. The book, I think, was almost the calm before the storm, one final year of semi-normality in the wizarding world before it got wrenched open. So where the book was kind of a transition into the darker themes of the Deathly Hallows, where the evil and darkness and creepy things built gradually throughout, the movie throws it all at us, as if to say "Voldemort's back, bitches, and he's kicking ass!" Probably it's an excuse to get more screen time for the famous actors
like Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonnom Carter (I probably didn't spell those right...), but overall I think it will make the movie all kinds of spectacular. One thing has been prominently absent from the trailers, though: Weasley's Wizard Fucking Wheezes. The best not cut out that joke shop.