It is my opinion that there is no legitimate argument against Gay Marriage.
It appears that more and more people are accepting Gay Marriage. About 50% of people now accept it, Hawaii just legalized Civil Unions (a step below but still a step ahead), Obama will no longer pursue defending the Defense of Marriage Act, Five states and the District of Columbia recognize Gay Marriage, Prop 8 was struck down in California, and Maryland will most likely approve Gay Marriage very soon (although by Maryland law, it will most likely go to a referendum and Gay Marriage has been defeated in every state in which it has been put to a popular vote).
Of course, there are still many people (50%) that still do not accept gay marriage (at least some do support civil unions). But as my opening line stated, there is no legitimate argument against Gay Marriage. Most “arguments” are just simple statements with no real point.
“It’s Tradition!”
So? Slavery was tradition. Keeping women in the house and having no rights was tradition. Marriage was once a concept of ownership of women! Just because something is old, does not mean it is right.
“The Bible says…”
No No No No No. I will not listen to any argument that starts with that. This is not a theocracy. This nation was not founded upon the Bible. It was founded upon Enlightenment principles and the basis of our laws comes from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass about what the Bible says on this issue. Don’t get me started on the list of things the Bible says I can and can’t do that make no sense in modern times…
“It takes a man and a woman to make a child. Two men or two women cannot make a child”
...Oh, are you done? Um, do you want to make an argument and not state basic biological fact? Yes, biology dictates that man+woman=baby and that two men or two women cannot create a child. You can't argue with that. But, there are plenty of childless couples in the world, should their marriages be nullified because they are not fulfilling their duties? How does the ability to reproduce entitle you to certain rights?
“Because we need marriage to make children”
No, we don’t. SEX creates children. You just stated above you need a man and a woman to create children. Marriage isn’t the “+” sign, it’s sex. Do you know how many kids are born out of wedlock each year? Gay Marriage is not banning reproduction. Reproduction will not be affected at all by this. Do two men or two women getting married across the state all of a sudden turn me gay and not want to reproduce?
“Gays are sick pedophiles!!! They just want to redefine marriage to make their choice of lifestyle acceptable to teach in schools and force our kids to be gay!!!!!!!!”
Do you people still exist? Gay Marriage is some super secret plan to take over America and destroy it from within? Googling “homosexuality in school” does not give you a single gay-friendly site on the first page. Instead, we get pages about how gays are trying to take over and brainwash our children (I didn’t look further as I started to feel sick with disgust).
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
Why haven’t I seen the book “Protocols of the Elders of Castro Street” yet? Yes, I saw a Republican Maryland State Senator use this argument on the news this week (I think it was a State Senator. Maybe it was a protester dressed nicely. I can't find a clip). In fact, this kind of language actually got a conservative member of the Maryland Senate to support Gay Marriage. So please, keep spewing your hate-filled crap!
The only argument against Gay Marriage that makes some sense is this: Civil Unions YES, Gay Marriage NO. While I don’t like creating a second-class designation for gays, this at least allows their relationship to be viewed under the law and gives similar benefits as marriage (Civil Union laws are harder to write as they have to define every single legal right to be granted, whereas marriage already has legally defined rights on the books).
I am a little uneasy about Obama’s decision to not enforce the DoMA. As President, he has to enforce the laws of the land, even the ones he disagrees with. He should work to repeal it (which won’t happen with this Congress) or let the Supreme Court decide (A. The Court is pretty conservative and could strike down Gay Marriage, setting back the clock or B. The Court will uphold Gay Marriage but the backlash will be so great it will greatly energize opponents into pushing for an overturning or an Amendment, just as Roe v. Wade has done with abortion). I support embryonic stem cell research but agree with the Judge’s decision to stop the administration from funding it, as it does violate federal law. There is nothing in the Constitution saying that you can’t ban the funding for something, so the law is Constitutional. Work to repeal.
You can’t just decide to follow what laws you like (You hear me South Carolina and other CSA states?), that would be anarchy. But should you disobey laws that are unfair? But what is “unfair”? Too much thinking for a Saturday…
Wait, how was Elaine able to go to a "lesbian wedding" in 1992? Was it legal back then? Or was it not illegal?
No comments:
Post a Comment