I haven't really written about this issue for a couple of reasons. First, unless I somehow catch homosexuality from one of my gay friends it isn't likely to ever be an issue for me. Second, it's one of those issues where nothing that anybody says is really going to change anybody's mind one way or another. People have decided their position either emotionally or logically. There's nothing changing in the debate to affect a logical decision and you aren't going to change somebody's emotions via your arguments.
So why am I piping up now? Because I've heard "to preserve the sanctity of marriage" one time too many. Every time I've heard this particular argument I've cringed a little bit at the hypocrisy of the statement. I've run out of cringe room. (Plus the retort finally came to me earlier today at Trey's place.)
The people who are arguing for amendments defining marriage as being a union between one man and one woman do not care one whit about the sanctity of marriage. The people fighting for laws defining marriage as being a union between one man and one woman do not give a damn about the sanctity of marriage. The people who are fighting against any and all legislation that would make homosexual marriage legal couldn't give two shits for the sanctity of marriage.
Want to know how I know this? It's because if they actually gave even the slightest weight to preserving the sanctity of marriage they would be fighting for amendments, laws and legislation to bolster marriage instead of this hypocritical hogwash they are involved in.
Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? It's easy. Make that "til death do us part" portion for real. Make the marriage contract an actual contract. Make marriage a rare and precious thing instead of the "discard after use" recyclable it has become.
Imagine if marriage was permanent. First off there would be a hell of a lot less of them. People wouldn't be getting married for idiotic reasons any more. Britney would have stayed single. Rock stars and celebrities wouldn't count their spouses with sillhouettes on their car doors. People would be forced to actually deal with their partner and make things work. No quick outs.
So if you care about the sanctity of marriage stop putting your efforts into keeping people apart and start putting it where it should be: keeping marriages together.
Dopple-G brought up a point about philanderers and abusers. Should somebody be forced to stay with a scumbag? No, but you do have to remain married to them. Make sure your partner isn't a slut, dog, harridan or beater before you marry them. Give a psych exam and physical along with the blood test in order to get a license.
"Ms.Hopeful? We're almost done with your application for a marriage license. Just sign on the line here saying that you have full knowledge that according to his psychiatric profile Mr.Offjack is a psychotic personality with pedophiliac impulses, has herpes and lice, and posesses an IQ the equivalent of a damp sponge. And initial here next to the penis size indicator. Thank you."
I'm for getting government out of the marriage business altogether, personally, but excellent point on the hypocrisy issue. And I still think that if someone's marriage is so fragile that the marriage of two gay guys next door is a threat to his or her fidelity, that person has got much, much bigger problems than the two gay guys next door.
Or two lesbians next door. Whatever.
I'd rather have two lesbians next door. Not real lesbians, of course. I mean the hot nubile ones like in the movies that are really just waiting for that one special guy to lure them back to the home team.
Damn, was that out loud?
In all states, a marriage performed by a licensed person already IS a contract under civil law, whether also done as an action in a religious setting or not.
Then put some terms on that contract. Term minimums of a decade or so would be relatively effective.
I'm with Ilyka on this. I don't like that the government is in the business of sanctity at all.
Damn. I was going to address gay marriage next week and you beat me to it.
I also agree that the government should get out of the marriage business-in Europe, the government is not involved, gay marriage happens, and everything is ok.
It hasn't always been like that-as recently as 10 years ago Norway castrated homosexuals, so it's not like everything is hunky-dory here (and they still do it to the clinically insane, in a nice touch of "let's further the horribleness that is your life.)
But I disagree with one thing you wrote-that we should work hard to keep marriages together.
Yes, marriage is work, hard suffering, flinging dishes and adulterous relationships, inter-mingled with grandchildren sitting at your knee, Christmas presents and whipped cream fights. But marriages change and bust due to the nature of the person-ask any of the Baby Boomers parents, and they'll tell you that had they had the option, they would've definitely divorced.
I think of divorce as a sad fact of society, but then I don't see that marriage to someone that it's not going to work with should equate to a prison sentence.
Hi, I noticed you were talking about a sexual health matter. If you'd like to submit your page to SH Directory, please do ;-) (http://www.shdir.com)
nike shox
shox shoes
nike shoes shox
nike shox running shoes
nike shoes
shox nz shoes
shox nz
shox torch
torch shoes
nike dream shoes
dream shoes
shox monster shoes
nike shox monster shoes
nike shox nz
nz shoes
shox oz
oz shoes
shox r3
nike shox r3
shox r4
nike shox r4
r4 torch
shox r4 torch
nike shox r5
shox r5
shox tl1
tl1 shox
tl3 nike shox
tl3 shox
nike shox turb
shox turb