I simply am unable to comprehend the current debate over Gay Marriage. Here are my incoherent thoughts on the subject:
First of all, I’d like to make my position on the subject clear. I could care less what two consenting people do with their genitals/lives. Happiness is tough to find, and if you find happiness in the arms of a member of the same sex, more power to you. Do I get a bit weirded out when I see two gays/lesbians making out in the subway? Sure… But that’s my problem, not theirs, and besides, I also get weirded out when two heteros are making out in public…. Public Displays of Affection are always awkward for everyone but the two people engaged in them. But lets get this train back on track.
Do I support same-sex marriage? Of course. There is no reason why a segment of the population should be outcast and ostracized.
The Children? What about the children? Well, if you ask me, I can’t see how a gay couple could possibly do a worse job of raising a child than a hetero couple, and two average gays could certainly do a better job than an orphanage. There are plenty of orphaned kids floating around today, and plenty of gay couples looking to raise them. How could a couple willing to take in a child do a worse job that one who concieved one by accident in the back of their Ford Fiesta?
The Sanctity of Marriage? Come on, the divorce rate is astronomical, I think the entire concept of the sanctity of marriage is pretty tarnished already. If marriage was simply a religious concept at this point, then this would be a non-issue. But there are so many advantages and laws set up to protect married couples that the religious and public concepts of marriage are intimately intertwined nowadays. If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage, that’s their deal, but the government should have to. Anything less is bigotry. What about two atheists? Are they allowed to get married? Of course they are, so why not two guys/girls who genuinely love each other?
Just the notion that Massachusetts and the US Government are considering their respective constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage (I’m sorry, to “define marriage as that which is entered by a man and a woman”) is nauseating. How can our lawmakers possibly think that it is OK to explicitly deny rights to a segment of the population? I just hope that the public isn’t as ignorant as our lawmakers..
12 thoughts on “Same-sex Marriage”
Pretty much verbatim what my opinion is on this topic.
I completely agree with you and I seriously hope our country gets its shit together soon.
but then there are a lot of other issues we still need to work on, who the hell am I to think that this will ever get sorted out?
I gotta get me a Ford Fiesta.
You’ve got the point argued to perfection. Every single person debating FOR this crap should be fired for wasting their respective state/country’s damn tax money. If they had spent half the time working on funding education as they spend on this, we’d have other countries outsourcing their IT to us.
And we let these people buy BOMBS?
One of the things that I don’t get about this whole mess is the argument against same-sex marriage because only heterosexual couples can produce children. It’s, like, hello! The sole goal is marriage is not to produce as many kids as you can. (Then again, it is the Catholic Church making these arguments here…) Anyway, what about heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children or who can’t have children (due to fertility/genetic issues)? Does that mean that, even though they’re opposite-sex couples, they can’t get married either because they’re not going to reproduce?
Separation of church and state… civil unions for everyone and make marriage a religious aspect of the church. :D
My problem has to do less with the end result and more with the methodology. I would have no problem if the state legislators passed a law changing the definition of civil marriage. But I do have a problem with a handful of judges that say 200 years of law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t fit with their progressive agenda. One could make the same equal protection case made in Massachusetts for 5 people getting married together. Can the State put any standards on a civil marriage licenses? Of course it can, just like it can put standards on liquor licenses.
I would have no problem if the state legislators passed a law changing the definition of civil marriage. But I do have a problem with a handful of judges that say 200 years of law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t fit with their progressive agenda
The judges found that the 200 year old law is unconstitutional, which it is. The CDA was struck down for being unconstitutional and everyone cheered.
Judges always like to find something unconstitutional.. It’s the best way to overrule the legislature when they want their agenda in. Without passing judgement one way or another, odds are if something was deemed Constitutional for 200 years, the ruling to overturn it should be much more detailed and supported than turning over something passed two years ago.
My personal feeling is the government should just get the fuck out of determining mariage at all, and convert what government really needs to deal with (Inheritance primarily) to simple contract law. Get rid of tax breaks/penalties for being married/single, and let the market sort out the rest like insurance benefits and such.. If insurance company A wants to allow spousal coverage on a same-sex partnership and company B doesn’t, then take that into effect when buying insurance.
Judges always like to find something unconstitutional.. It’s the best way to overrule the legislature when they want their agenda in.
And the legislature uses laws to get their agenda in…
here is something quite relevant: San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples
Whole lotta stuff I could say, but you pretty much said it already. :)