It is surprisingly difficult to determine what exactly is being protected through opposition to same-sex marriage. Allowing that society, tradition, family values, children and culture are under dire threat if gay marriage is allowed; a fair-minded person might expect a clear rationale as to how the threat manifests itself.
For example, it might be argued that stupid people should not be allowed to marry.
More often than not, they produce stupid children. Stupid people are a drag on the economy, they behave badly in public, they drive poorly when it rains, they are not good listeners, they tell bad jokes, they lead us into stupid wars and they impose their stupid beliefs on others. Society, children and culture suffer when the stupid wed. There is at least a coherent argument against idiot marriages.
Personally, I have no quarrel with imbecilic unions because the pursuit of happiness trumps most other considerations. When the ignoramus meets his match, the bliss doubles by some counts.
Charles Hartley
June 18, 2008 at 11:40 PM
While I might be able to see being liberal as baggage, having gay friends as baggage? I think not, though I certainly appreciate the post and your pro-choice beliefs.
Shalyce
June 19, 2008 at 02:19 PM
You make some good points. I also disagree that sex is purely for reproduction purposes, clearly most individuals engage in it for pleasure as well. But when the voice of the people opposes a proposition, should a judge then have the right to overule that proposition? Should a judge be able to rule that homosexuals should be ban from the country because that is their personal belief? No one is banning homosexuals from having sex, raising children or promoting their lifestyle, so the argument that homosexuals should be able to marry to have sex and children is not legitimate either. The argument against same sex marriage is that many believe it to be morally wrong, the majority in fact, and the voice of the people should be listened to and not disregarded. Are we trying to revert to the ways of England that so many fought and gave their lives to leave and change? Really, what is medevial, the belief against same sex marriage, or the belief that judges should have the power to make whatever changes in society they feel are appropriate or fit their personal agenda? Why not change the country so that we have one king dictating each law because that seems to be where we are headed.
Chris
June 19, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Shalyce,
The Judicial branch of our government is charged with the duty of upholding the laws of the constitution - this necessarily means that sometimes judges will strike down unconstitutional laws. If the citizens of a small Southern County voted to bring back slavery - would this be okay by your logic?
Vic from Ca.
June 20, 2008 at 07:16 PM
Homosexuality is an emotional problem. It is perverted and wrong. Everyone knows that.
Chris
June 20, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Vic,
It's at least refreshing to see somebody on your side of the issue so clearly and openly display their hateful, ignorant and fearful motivations - it's at least more honest than dressing up ignorance in civility and false arguments.
Vic from Ca.
June 20, 2008 at 08:12 PM
No hate - no fear - not even motive. I just made an observation. And ignorance? Is it ignorant to see that a man putting his penis in the rear end of another is not normal? You do not need a judge or book or school or religion to see it is wrong.
Chris McConnell
June 20, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Vic you need help or more love in you life - but I think this converation is over.
Claire June
June 21, 2008 at 01:32 AM
Chris. Amusing, thanks, especially the bit about stupid people having children. Totally needed a chuckle today.
Matthew C. Scallon
June 23, 2008 at 11:20 PM
"I suspect that the only real tradition being protected here (wittingly or not) is our puritanical belief that sex must be limited to a procreational and not recreational activity."
I find your use of that adjective ironic, the adjective "puritanical," that is. BTW, I believe the word is "procreative," but I appreciate the pun.
Anyway, enough with the English lesson, it's ironic that you've characterize the support for the sanctity of marriage as puritanical. History records that the Puritans removed marriage from list of church sacraments, declaring that marriage as a sacrament is a vestige of "Popery." They taught that marriage was but a civil contract.
Since then, the State has invested itself with the authority as to determine who can or cannot marry. At least the State no longer justifies its position through anti-Catholic bigotry, as it did in the days of the Puritans. I suppose that's progress.
So, to be historically correct, those who oppose the sanctity of marriage and consider it the State's perview to define marriage are in fact the ones being puritanical. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
Rand Lewis
June 26, 2008 at 03:02 AM
Hey Chris...it's your long lost roommate Rand!! I was bored at work and Googled you. My family and I are going to be in San Diego next week. Hope to hear from you soon!! Rand
