Why not?
As some of you may know, the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared the ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.
I don't know how everyone else feels, but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Gay marriage today is like the issue of abortion 30-something years ago. Personally, I support abortion, because I support the choice to be able to do what you want, not because I like the idea of killing babies (which I do, but only in a strictly comical context). I feel the same way about gay marriage. It's not a choice that I personally will need to make, but it's one that I support the right to have, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, in my opinion, the arguments against gay marriage make it that much stronger than the abortion issue. Although I don't agree with them, I can understand where pro-life activists are coming from, with the sanctity of life argument and the abortion is murder angle.
One of the anti-gay marriage arguments are that marriage is for procreation. If that's the case, should we outlaw masturbation? Oral and anal sex? Sex among the elderly (maybe...) and the infertile? Because really, these are all against the Bible.
Another argument is that it undermines the traditional nuclear family. Come on. You can't possibly tell me that one out of every two "mom, dad, and two kids" family out there isn't undermining itself. If the people making this argument were really so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, wouldn't they outlaw divorce? And extramarital affairs? They would, so long as those issues didn't affect them at all. It's much easier to make someone else's life hard than your own.
I'm interested in everyone else's take on this. If I don't get some response, I'll take it to mean that this isn't really the forum for political discussion, and I'll write a new post about why I like cheese or something.
I don't know how everyone else feels, but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Gay marriage today is like the issue of abortion 30-something years ago. Personally, I support abortion, because I support the choice to be able to do what you want, not because I like the idea of killing babies (which I do, but only in a strictly comical context). I feel the same way about gay marriage. It's not a choice that I personally will need to make, but it's one that I support the right to have, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, in my opinion, the arguments against gay marriage make it that much stronger than the abortion issue. Although I don't agree with them, I can understand where pro-life activists are coming from, with the sanctity of life argument and the abortion is murder angle.
One of the anti-gay marriage arguments are that marriage is for procreation. If that's the case, should we outlaw masturbation? Oral and anal sex? Sex among the elderly (maybe...) and the infertile? Because really, these are all against the Bible.
Another argument is that it undermines the traditional nuclear family. Come on. You can't possibly tell me that one out of every two "mom, dad, and two kids" family out there isn't undermining itself. If the people making this argument were really so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, wouldn't they outlaw divorce? And extramarital affairs? They would, so long as those issues didn't affect them at all. It's much easier to make someone else's life hard than your own.
I'm interested in everyone else's take on this. If I don't get some response, I'll take it to mean that this isn't really the forum for political discussion, and I'll write a new post about why I like cheese or something.
17 Comments:
I like cheese.
11/20/2003 10:42:28 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:31 PM
You said anal.
11/20/2003 11:02:52 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:31 PM
Seriously, though, what it really comes down to is that a lot of people are really skeeved out by the idea. Thus, the "sanctity of marriage" arguments and the procreation arguments, neither of which make a hell of a lot of sense. Howard Dean is famous for legalizing gay marriage in Vermont years ago, and now he's running on the premise that he's willing to make potentially unpopular politicial decisions if he thinks they're the right thing to do. But it later turned out that he HAD to vote for that bill because the state Supreme Court made him. And he's admitted on several occasions that the concept of gay marriage makes him uncomfortable.
Goddamn, this is long. Okay, my point is, don't try to read into or refute any of the other side's arguments, because they all stem from the fact that people just plain don't like it. I'm done now.
11/20/2003 11:09:24 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:32 PM
First off, Howard Dean didn't legalize gay marriage: he legalized CIVIL UNIONS, wherein any two people can get all the benefits of a married couple (taxes, etc.). It's just not called marriage.
Second, Steve, your comparison of gay marriage today to abortion thirty years ago is prescient. If Bush is reelected, you can be (almost) certain that, by 2010, all forms of abortion will be illegal in America, and that some terrible amendment to the Constitution will be passed completely banning any form of gay marriage/civil union/etc.
11/20/2003 11:15:35 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:32 PM
I can't say that I AGREE with gay marriage just like I don't AGREE with abortion... but it isn't something that really personally affects me. And the fact is, if people want to be married, they will find a way to do it, legal or not, just like with abortion or drugs. People will do what they want to do regardless of how the government feels.
The problem with arguing about this stuff is , like you said... People tend not to think through all the issues that are involved in whatever blanket statements they make. A lot of people strongly believe one thing that's totally in conflict with another of their beliefs. Like being against abortion, and for the death penatly. Sure, the circumstances may be different, but the result is the same.
Any-hoo, that's my two cents. I dunno if it really makes any sense, but gimme a break I'm on a sugar high here man!
11/20/2003 11:21:35 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:33 PM
In another article I read, Bush was asked what he thought about the Massachusetts ruling, and he said something along the lines of "come on people, we all know that it's our duty to keep marriage a holy institute between a man and a woman".
After all, there's no reason why Bush should go for the gay vote. That became a lost cause a long time ago.
11/20/2003 11:28:38 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:33 PM
Alright, I lied just now. Here's the actual quote I found:
But, in his proclamation endorsing "Marriage Protection Week," Bush wrote, "Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America."
Marriage Protection Week was organized by such Religious Right leaders as Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Family Association to deny equality under the law to gays and lesbians.
11/20/2003 11:32:24 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:34 PM
After writing several passionate paragraphs on this subject, I ended up deleting it because it all comes down to the fact that we all should care about gay rights because not granting marriage to someone based on sexual orientation is as shameful as not granting someone the right to sit in a restaurant because they're black. I know, there's the whole "religious" issue and the sanctity of marriage. However, today we allow couples to get on reality tv shows and marry strangers. Why can't we grant that right to two people who actually love each other.
On a lighter note...Little known fact: In most states, oral sex is illegal.
11/20/2003 12:16:14 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:34 PM
Yes, and those states should be detached from the country and sent to drift in the ocean until they learn their lesson.
11/20/2003 01:06:16 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:34 PM
Marriage Protection Week? Is there gonna be a parade? I want some beads. And cotton candy.
11/20/2003 01:51:31 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:34 PM
AJ - Yeah, I know. And I was going to bring that up, but I figured my comment was long enough already. Actually, the Vermont Supreme Court required him to sign the bill, but they gave him a choice between legalizing marriage or granting them this civil unions/domestic partnership thing. So he went with the latter, thereby pissing off both conservatives for agreeing to it, and liberals for taking the non-marriage route.
In other news, the apartment above mine is listening to the Celine Dion Titanic song. Loudly. That's lame.
11/20/2003 02:42:42 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:35 PM
I don't really care if they [the government] call two people joing together a "marriage" or a "civil union" or even a "ramalamadingdong" for that matter, as long as those two people are afforded the same rights/privileges under the law.
11/20/2003 03:50:45 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:35 PM
Steve, the concept of a "gay" marriage fundamentally de-roots the very foundation of this great nation. It presents an inescapable slippery slope. Next thing you know, the left handers will want to "marry," if they can conceive of such a thing. Then people under 5 feet in height will want to "marry," and I think we all know what kind of havoc that will wreak. What are we going to say to pets that want to marry? Can we really deny them the sanctity of matrimony after we let the "gays" get married? I think not. The ban on gay marriages is the only thing holding the fabric of this sweet, morally just country together. We really should turn our attention to more important issues like bombing dirty brown countries in the desert. It's our civic duty. God bless America.
11/20/2003 04:44:04 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:35 PM
(humming the Star Spangled Banner)
So true, Couch. So true.
(wiping a tear from my eye)
11/20/2003 05:00:52 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:36 PM
The problem with your post is that you joke about things like outlawing masturbation and divorce. The hard-core righties that are behind the sactity of marriage bullcrap would also like to see all these things outlawed, in a perfect world. The thing is these people have years of experience pushing their agendas into the political spotlight. If only the left had a similar system to compete. Well, I guess we do have the liberal media, but wait, thats just another result of right's constant kvetching and complaining. If Newt says it enough, eventual it seeps its way into the mainstream. Okay, I just got way off topic. In my opinion, and from the people I've talked to who have ridden in the back of my cab, it seems like most people don't like the idea of gay marriage but would be tolerant towards it. The thing is, we have a problem seperating marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense. Two athiests can get married in a courtroom and still get all the visitation and inheretance rights and all the other perks of marriage, or two Baptists can get married in church in the eyes of God and get the benefits as well. So maybe the Baptists don't want to officiate gay weddings, but why can't a judge? Also, since the right has this stereotype of gay people being hedonistic and having multiple partners and getting and giving AIDS everytime they such some new strangers dick, wouldn't they want to SUPPORT the idea of two queer men or women wanting to spend the rest of their lives together in complete monogamy? I don't get it. People are assholes. Do they think banning gay marriage will make all the gay people go away? Bah. I've typed a lot. I'm going to stop now.
Oh, but before I do, I want to mention that a professor at EMU got fired this year for officiating a weddding between two women. Ok. I'm really done now.
11/20/2003 08:08:48 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:36 PM
Ha. Sactity of Marriage. That phrase really tickles me. I think two men should be able to go to Vegas to a drive through wedding chapel and be married by an Elvis impersonator and have it be just as Sactified as if a man and a woman did it.
11/20/2003 08:13:08 PM
By
Anonymous, at 2:37 PM
It amuses me that in a country where religion and politics are supposed to be separate entities, moral convictions still control the thinking of most politicians. Here is my whole stance on gay marriages. I don't care. Bravo if gay marriage is eventually legal. It peeves me off that morality is looked at so rigidly anyway. Morality is a constantly shifting thing, and yes, I know you may argue that therein lies the problem, but I don't know. I am really too tired to be more profound, but the more I live, the more pissed off I get about all the bullshit involved with life, and living, but the less I feel like showing it. That either makes me lazy, apathetic, or teetering on the edge worthless, but this is getting tiresome, and I am going to fall asleep...so, I guess, yeah, Gay marriage, why not?
11/21/2003 12:39:20 AM
By
Anonymous, at 2:37 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home