Gay Marriage Revisited
I touched on this in the introductory post, but since it's come up again, I figure I should more accurately explain my views.
As I said, I am in favor of it, not because I'm gay, but because any arguments to the contrary come across as either completely inane or entirely semantic. Let's go through a few of them now:
Gays can already get civil unions. This is a semantic argument. Now, of course, the inverse argument is true, if it's semantic, why does it matter? The reason is that establishing a difference in terminology goes a long way to providing the basis for an inequality. Technically, after the Civil War, every African American was equal to European Americans, right? And there wasn't still a century of racial division and hatred? A lot of people say "it's not right that civil unions are different, they should be equal, but they still shouldn't be 'married.'" That, my friends, is an -ism, and should not be tolerated.
If we let gays marry, who's next? Jon Stewart had the best counterargument to this. If we don't let gays marry, who's next? Will the government then repeal the right for me to wed the woman of my choice, because she happens to not be white? Or Christian? Or any other arbitrary difference? Not to mention that I doubt anyone will be marrying their toaster anytime soon. But, hey, if they want to, and they get a toaster that wants to, why not?
It devalues the concept of marriage. Sorry, but no. People marrying at 19, and being divorced four times devalues the concept of marriage. Couples who "stay together for the kids" even though the two of them hate each other devalues the concept of marriage. Two people, who are in love, making a commitment for the remainder of their lives does not. Actually, while we're on the subject, the fact that the government can tell me who I can and cannot marry, in itself, devalues the concept.
One more thing to think about. When the country was first formed, it was illegal for "slaves" to marry, defining marriage as "two white people of opposite gender." When they allowed that, they disallowed interracial marriage, defining marriage as "two people of the same race but different genders." Why can't we just make marriage "two people?"
Our government cannot hold this truth as self-evident, it must be taught. All men are created equal. Their skin color, their origin, their religion, their sexual preference, their health, their age, their hair length, their choice in car, and the amount of money they have cannot and should not have any bearing on the imposition of law.
This makes the second time now that the religious right has brought up this issue in order to pull the wool over the public's eyes as to the things that really should matter when electing representatives of the people. You are not electing someone because of their character. You are electing someone to do a job. Appraise policy, not morality.
As I said, I am in favor of it, not because I'm gay, but because any arguments to the contrary come across as either completely inane or entirely semantic. Let's go through a few of them now:
Gays can already get civil unions. This is a semantic argument. Now, of course, the inverse argument is true, if it's semantic, why does it matter? The reason is that establishing a difference in terminology goes a long way to providing the basis for an inequality. Technically, after the Civil War, every African American was equal to European Americans, right? And there wasn't still a century of racial division and hatred? A lot of people say "it's not right that civil unions are different, they should be equal, but they still shouldn't be 'married.'" That, my friends, is an -ism, and should not be tolerated.
If we let gays marry, who's next? Jon Stewart had the best counterargument to this. If we don't let gays marry, who's next? Will the government then repeal the right for me to wed the woman of my choice, because she happens to not be white? Or Christian? Or any other arbitrary difference? Not to mention that I doubt anyone will be marrying their toaster anytime soon. But, hey, if they want to, and they get a toaster that wants to, why not?
It devalues the concept of marriage. Sorry, but no. People marrying at 19, and being divorced four times devalues the concept of marriage. Couples who "stay together for the kids" even though the two of them hate each other devalues the concept of marriage. Two people, who are in love, making a commitment for the remainder of their lives does not. Actually, while we're on the subject, the fact that the government can tell me who I can and cannot marry, in itself, devalues the concept.
One more thing to think about. When the country was first formed, it was illegal for "slaves" to marry, defining marriage as "two white people of opposite gender." When they allowed that, they disallowed interracial marriage, defining marriage as "two people of the same race but different genders." Why can't we just make marriage "two people?"
Our government cannot hold this truth as self-evident, it must be taught. All men are created equal. Their skin color, their origin, their religion, their sexual preference, their health, their age, their hair length, their choice in car, and the amount of money they have cannot and should not have any bearing on the imposition of law.
This makes the second time now that the religious right has brought up this issue in order to pull the wool over the public's eyes as to the things that really should matter when electing representatives of the people. You are not electing someone because of their character. You are electing someone to do a job. Appraise policy, not morality.
posted by Kindralas at 10:34 AM
2 Comments:
This is good stuff. I think the debate training really pays off when you're not arguing with me.
And stop making eyes at my toaster.
Post a Comment
<< Home