Let’s Get Married, And Have A Gay Old Time! Part One

When I thought this topic up, I thought it’d be quite easy. All I had to do was do a bit of research, do a quick write up here, with arguments both for and against, and then I could go back to looking at pictures of a naked woman, and then masturbate to them. You know, the usual. This would have been quite easy because I possess the ability to see things from a different point of view – one that I may not necessarily agree with – yet still understand how people could come to that conclusion. For this topic, though, I failed. I just couldn’t do it. The reasons I found held, I believe, no merit whatsoever. So, instead of making this an unbiased presentation, I decided to make this an opinion piece. That basically means I get to be as sarcastic as possible. I view that as a challenge.

The topic under scrutiny today is that of gay marriage. It’s a touchy subject, I know, and one that is usual to produce flare ups of anger, though I’ll ask any and all who comment on such a thing – not just on here, but in real life, too – to be respectful of other people’s opinions. Even though I probably won’t…

According to BalancedPolitics, the first reason against is: 

• Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn’t go even farther to tear down those laws.

Which is, indeed, true. Almost. Many religions do consider homosexuality (and the cooler, sexier female version of lesbianism – or ‘Bow Chika Bow Wow’ as it is known in some parts) a sin, yet just as many do not. In Ancient Greece, it has been said by one member on JK, marriage was just a ‘legal document for the passing on of property through the production of legally recognised heirs’, and that many same sex couples were married in just the same way as straight Greeks. While I don’t know that for sure, it does sound likely. The Greeks kept the male and female children separated during their formative years – which gave rise to many gay relationships during those times. And, indeed, most likely carried on into adulthood, since men could not marry until they were thirty (and the girls could marry at approximately 14 years of age). However, it just as easily may not be true, as in other old cultures, the act of marriage was specifically done for the sake of producing offspring (it’s interesting to note that, in the cases I’ve found, it was irrespective of sexual orientation. Meaning, you could be openly gay, but you still had to marry a woman and have kids. It is theorised that this was because there weren’t a lot of women around, so marriages and procreation were necessary for the continuation of a culture).

The Romans had no problem with it – though they did think it was wrong if you were ‘the woman’ during the act. Meaning, it was okay if you were the one giving it, not taking it. Too, the Romans were also fans of adoption. It wasn’t about bloodline so much as the legacy. They adopted those with good qualities to further strengthen the family. 

As to the legal system, why, that is quite preposterous. The US constitution clearly defines a separation of church and state. To have laws defined on beliefs that don’t even apply to the whole of the country is unconstitutional (I’ve always wanted to say that!). Luckily, I’m a Brit, and we have no such problems (I believe the words ‘suck it’ are the most appropriate at the moment). Too, for a government to force anything on a religious institution is unconstitutional. But for the government to refuse marriage on religious grounds is, as I’ve said, also unconstitutional.

The second reason against it is thus:

• It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn’t be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

The definition of marriage, as with the definitions of all words, is an on-going, never ceasing process. Words change often, sometimes as quickly as a few years. The word ‘cool’ has, within the last couple of decades, taken on the meaning of denoting acceptance, yet it also meant to be reserved, and also meant a certain temperature.

However, I don’t think that this would demean marriage. Yes, there probably will be people making joke marriages (such a thing has been known to happen to Rocky Horror virgins during Rocky Horror stage shows) as well as those trying to avoid tax. But the issue of same sex marriage is one that has been, and still is, hard fought over. Would those people, who have been denied something we heterosexuals now take for granted, not take it seriously? Of course they would. Well, some would. We’d be fools not to think that. But for those who have been in loving relationships with the ones they love for years, who have waited to be recognised as man and manly-wife legally, it is my firm belief, they would not debase it. Besides, the real reason is to get said tax benefits. Who’d be stupid enough to divorce, and lose them?

That's Who.

Yeah, because it’s really the gays who are weakening marriage…

Number 3: 

• It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of “family” would only make the situation worse. 

It’s interesting to note that it doesn’t really say how it would make it worse, merely that the traditional family is superior. I argue that it’s not the simple fact that the family consists of a man, woman and children that makes the family the essential building block, but the fact that they love each other; that they care for each other; that they cherish, respect and trust one another. That the family is stable and happy and secure, with ‘decent’  moral values (I’ll let you fill in what you mean by that, here: _______________). Just because there’s a man and a woman doesn’t mean there are these things. 

The Killer Combo: Karla Homolko And Paul Bernardo

It seems that this post has run longer than I had expected (we prefer to keep our blog posts short, for various reasons I won’t go into), so I shall continue this in another post. Don’t worry. You won’t have to wait long. I shall finish this completely, and then post it with only the barest of breaks.