First and foremost I’m well aware that my personal thoughts and feelings on this matter, although correct, don’t matter. Not all the numbers are in yet, but early polling shows that no one cares what I think.
As I already BRILLIANTLY stated in past articles, it would be impossible for me to care less who sleeps with whom (Or is it whom sleeps with who? Whom/Whoever it is, I think we can all agree “sleeping” isn’t what the debate is about.)
Over the past several days I have seen a plethora of my friends change their profile pictures on Facebook to “equal” signs in support of legalizing gay marriage. In my little brain, those equal signs are a clear indication that gay marriage opponents have lost the battle, and consequently the entire war in the process. And, judging on how they have framed the debate, deservingly so.
All over the internet I have seen the same theme from the opponents of gay marriage. It’s either “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” or “the book of Leviticus says…” or “gay sex is just icky.”
That’s how those people feel. I don’t want to dismiss their feelings outright. Feelings are real, I get that.
Let’s look at these arguments one at a time:
“Adam and Steve” – the ONLY reason this works at all is that it rhymes. “If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.”
“Leviticus says…” – The Old Testament also says you can’t eat hot dogs, or shellfish and you should stone people to death for shopping on Sunday. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ then you also believe he fulfilled the law of Moses.
“Gay sex is just icky” – Off the top of my head I can list a whole slew of heteros who I shudder to think about, or ever envision them doing the horizontal bone dance (ew gross, I just thought of some – auuuuck pass the ‘brain bleach’).
In my little, newly bleached brain I think the best argument in favor of gay marriage is that “Gay Divorce Court” on TV would be HILARIOUS. But instead, the group in favor of gay marriage framed the argument around it being a civil liberty.
I have a problem with this for two reasons: The first is, this is a tactic the left always uses. It honestly drives me crazy about liberals. If they want something, and they don’t want to have to explain why, they hide it behind a civil liberty. As much as they may want it to be, marriage is NOT a civil liberty. Gay people can vote, go to the same store as everyone, go the same school and can drive on the same highway. What they can’t do is marry someone of the same sex. But neither can I, nor a black, nor a Hispanic. The second reason it bothers me is it forever slams the debate shut. From now until the end of time being opposed to any form of gay marriage, for any reason, is an announcement that you believe in, and fight for inequality. It is synonymous to advocating getting those who are different from you riding in the back of the bus or drinking from a different water fountain. Anyone who even suggests a little bit of caution in redefining an institution that, more than likely, predates civilization itself is easily dismissed with no intellectual effort. Why would you listen to such people? They are clearly bigots, haters, homophobes and knuckle draggers. They have no place in the discussions that will shape the brave new world in which we now live.
You know what? I just realized the antonym for synonym is antonym. Well played antonym. Well played.
Personally I’m for civil unions. My sister and her life partner have two children. They are wonderful parents. They have spent tens of thousands of dollars making it so if one of them dies the other gets legal custody. Then there is the stupid business about gay couples not being allowed to visit their partners in the hospital, or not being able to get survivor benefits. With a civil union all that stuff is done away with, and that to me is a good thing. One piece of paper and you’re done. I see no reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to do these things.
The big problem is that words mean things. If you allow society to redefine marriage then eventually marriage will mean everything which will mean it means nothing, and I don’t think that is a good place to go. “Feelings” and “Love” aren’t a good precedent for a legal discussion. We are going to have to go through this debate over and over as polygamy and any other variances of marriage rear its head. Let’s say I’m a 50 year old man who is a widower. My 25 year old daughter and I want to get married. We are both of legal age, and I had never been inappropriate with her growing up. If “feelings” are what it’s all about, why would you want to stop us? “We love each other.”
I know gays and pedophiles are not the same, but there is a very real push to make pedophilia legal. If it becomes legal what is to stop a 50 year old man from marrying a 12 year old boy? “We love each other.”
What if a man is legally married to a woman, and comes out gay. He loves his wife and his gay lover. Why can’t they all get married? “We love each other.”
If they legalize gay marriage there is going to be a TON of unintended consequences. Again, once “feelings” become precedence it’s going to open up a whole crap load of other issues. I think an institution that has been around for 6,000 years shouldn’t be pitched on a whim. That’s why, in my little brain, this is an issue for the states to decide. The people of the state, NOT THE JUDGES. It needs to be put on the ballot. We would be able to see what the obstacles are and if we decide in the future to make a change we will be doing so informed.
I dunno. Maybe I’m a knuckle dragger.
LIFEZILLA: I’m not close-minded. I’m just right.
