Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. I also have no problem with polygamy, keeping in mind that forcing women into marriages is still wrong by me (and I would of course have no problem with a woman having more than one husband… though your guess is as good as mine why she would want more than one fat, sweaty mess watching sports and nagging her for sex).
But I have some new regulations I would also like to make before I launch into my defense of gay marriage. I think dowries and bride prices should be illegal, and arranged marriage should be, if not banned, be reclassified as not marriage, but as “arranged unions.”
And if you got married in a church, I think your marriage license deserves to have an asterisk on it, since your marriage has a higher rate of divorce. I don’t want you guys making a mockery of my marriage with your huge embarrassing failures, sorry guys. I’m not saying you have to change, and I respect you as oxygen consuming meat bags, but what you “people” do is so disgusting, and I can’t stand to know you have the same privileges as me.
With that in mind, I would like to discuss a post done by The Heathen Republican entitled “The Non-Faith-Based Case Against Same-Sex Marriage.”
First off, my hats off to the amusing bit of rhetorical acrobatics in twisting gay marriage into an issue that isn’t about equal rights. Bravo, sir. I actually had to read it twice before I was able to see through it.
Basically, here’s the argument in a non-gay situation. Suppose I wrote a law making it legal to throw a stone at a black person. By the logic that “heterosexuals also don’t have the right to marry people of the same sex,” it would be legal for black people to throw stones at black people, so they have the same rights.
Like I said, quite amusing.
The next problem is the suggestion that civil unions are “an adequate substitute.” This makes sense to a conservative, but to those of us weary of conservatives and their sneaky ways, we don’t have to think about it long before we are reminded by the policy of “separate but equal.”
Here’s what’s going to happen. Not what might happen, but what will happen. These small, bumblefuck hick towns will refuse to issue same-sex civil unions, while just enough gay people will be placated into quieting down. Meanwhile, “civil unions” won’t be honored with benefits like sharing of health insurance through employment, and certain states will find ways of making life harder for those who pursue the unprivileged title of “civilly united.” Adoption will undoubtedly be tougher, and good luck getting tax breaks.
Tying gay marriage to straight marriage and having no designated difference is the only way to ensure that these unions are recognized by back-woods bigots. I’m not saying this blogger would oppress gay people, but this view is permissive of continued government over-regulation… which is strange, coming from a conservative.
On a side note, I also find it hypocritical that states are given the right to define their age of consent but not whether they can honor same-sex marriages. Again, conservatives have used federal measures (DOMA) to restrict state rights, which is supposedly against one of their basic tenants.
I also want to bring up a non-gay marriage issue that is then proposed by the blogger. Supposedly, progressives like all change. Hmm… I’m fairly sure I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and vomit a better statement than that. For one thing, I don’t like all the change Republicans have been enacting, so much change that I feel like they hijacked this country and flew it straight into a tall symbol of our former power and success (that’s a terrorist allusion, for those who are a little slow… since I know at least one conservative is reading this).
Marriage is a malleable institution. If you want to talk about how we’re changing the traditional view of marriage, I can only imagine at what point one is arbitrarily using as the perfect definition of marriage.
Pretend I pulled off some amazing Bill & Ted time-machine assisted presentation. Here are some random and nameless people from history presenting their view of marriage in shockingly fluent modern English.
“Back in my day, marriage was a sacred agreement between a man and the woman he loved’s father.”
“Marriage is all about networking. Now our clans get along, and she’ll be sexually mature in just 6 more years.”
“Hi, my name is Oedipus…”
Hey, I said no names.
Those cultures didn’t fall apart because of their marriage structure. Rome didn’t fall because married men frequented prostitutes. Greece didn’t fall because middle aged men fondled pre-pubescent boys and then hooked them up with a nice young woman when the child grew to marrying age… and they lose their charm, I guess.
I would appreciate some creative help regarding the “consequences” of allowing a wider definition of marriage. Are you suggesting an animal/pedophile snowball effect, or is it some other logical fallacy? Let me know, I can be so unimaginative sometimes.