So after seeing a few posts today I got a little indignant about the current political trend about gay marriage and started posting with my gut
instead of my head. I should know better, my gut puts out petrid fumes.. my head is a much more appropriate tool for constructive discourse.
Anyway, preamble aside, I was pondering the subject and I came to realize how incredibly rediculous the subject is from a political point of view.
Here we are arguing about whether or not people of the same gender should have the right to get married to each other. Why is this even an issue?
Let me break it down a bit...
Marriages in the US have two components, religious and legal. From a religious point of view, yes, there are people of Abrahamic religions that will
not allow their followers get married to those of the same gender. That's fine, really. It's their religious belief and more power to them.
However, how and why should that apply to people that are not of those faiths.. or for that matter, why should it apply to people who are not getting
married in a church?
Another aspect I have seen discussed is that allowing gay marriage would damage irrevocably the institute of marriage. I still haven't come fully to
grips about this. If gay couples cannot get married, they are still going to live together; they just won't be able to get a joint bank account (in
some states), get tax breaks, visit each other in the hospital, etc. So are we saying that the institute of marriage is so fragile that it can be
destroyed by something as simple as allowing gay couples to visit each other in the hospital?
When you think about it, the modern understanding of marriage is fairly new. As late as the early 20th century, arranged marriages were still
commonplace. The concept still exists to this day. Yet, while the idea of forcing someone to marry someone they do not wish to marry may be
offensive to our western sensibilities; the idea of allowing anyone to marry any human they want (with necessary accomodations for age) is apparently
also offensive to our sensabilities.
And you certainly cannot bring the idea of childbirth and raising families into the equation as you do not have to be married to have a kid and, in
fact, many people have perfectly functional families without an official "marriage".
Finally, you get the argument that the wishes of the majority should trump the wishes of the minority. I do not understand how the majority is
harmed. If the minority request would harm or disrupt the lives of the majority, then perhaps that would mean something, but in this case, the
request does not interfere with the lives or rights of the majority. What right does the majority have in deciding on something that does not
directly affect them?
These are essentially my thoughts on the subject. It is a red herring political issue that is tromped out every election to divide and confuse so
that the American people can be reduced to a mob of reactive trolls that will follow the leader instead of thinking with their heads and hearts.
edit on 8-13-2011 by rogerstigers because: I was randomly selected for enhanced security screening by the spelling nazi's