Translate

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Gay Marriage

First, what do we mean by marriage? Is it just a formal declaration of two people's dedication to one another, or does the word imply some religious connotation? If it inherently implies something religious, then the government should not recognize a marriage in any legal way. This seems like common sense separation of church and state: the government should not be in the business of deciding what is or is not a "legitimate" religious union. The government has no right to dictate what a religious marriage is, but no one is forced in this country to be a part of a religion, so who cares?


In the eyes of the government, everyone should have a civil union, or whatever other term you want to give it. After that, people are welcome to do whatever kooky ceremony they want for their cult, ahem, religion. Don't get offended; organized religions are just cults that grew large enough that society was forced to recognize them and give them special treatment. Churches like this should not be treated as tax-free NPOs.



In this way, statements like "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman" are irrelevant. Great, your group of friends likes to make up definitions for things. Neato. But the government has zero obligation to recognize them legally.

The next point the opposition makes is that we don't want to upset big bad Tradition by changing things. People hate change and fear it irrationally. Unfortunately, people often don't understand that the proper order of operations is:

  1. Consider facts and arguments
  2. Think
  3. State opinion
Most are content skipping to #3. What a clever shortcut!

Let's show them the light...


You recall slavery, right? Yes.
You remember when women couldn't vote, right? Yes.
And Black people too? Yes.
OK, so you also remember when interracial marriages were illegal? Oh yeah, almost forgot about that. Crazy.
Do you think think we should reverse all that? Of course not.
At the time of these changes, there were people--many people--who opposed these transitions on the basis of tradition and/or religion. So?
So, you're one of those people, only today. You're the one that can't see that what you believe is irrational and unfair. You're going to be the equivalent of the grandparent that won't stop dropping the n-bomb, and grabbing the waitress's ass at the restaurant. You're an asshole that needs to admit you were wrong and start living in the present.

I am not! This is totally different. 
Why? How is this different?
Well because gay people can't be real parents.
Really, why is that?
Because a both a female and male presence is necessary to raise a kid properly.
Oh I see. So if a child's mother dies in a car accident, leaving only the father and his brother to take care of the child, the government should obviously seize the child, right?
No! That's different!
How is that different? In both cases two men are raising a child without a female influence.
Right, but...
By the way, is that your kid over there--the one huffing kerosene while playing in traffic? Shouldn't you be watching him? Is that what raising a child "properly" looks like?
Well no one's perfect...
Ah, so perfection is only demanded of non hetero couples, then. Makes sense.

Conversations with people like this can go on for hours so I'll stop there. It's easy to call these people idiots and move-on, but it isn't particularly helpful. Educating them is far more beneficial and more likely to incite change.


Then again, I'm not volunteering for the job...sorry?


In the end, I don't give a flying fuck about "marriage" per se. But do I think I should be able to be with a bro of my choosing and receive the same benefits as everyone else? Yes. 


- Subscribe, share, comment, enjoy -


3 comments:

  1. But if we change the definition of marriage, then God will destroy our country! Allah is already pissed off at us, the last thing we need is the wrath of God as well.

    P.S: That screaming chick is HOT.

    ReplyDelete