Gay marriage--pro or con or what?
Now that the California Supreme Court has declared gay marriage legal, the time has come to have an opinion about it.
Unfortunately, I not only don't know what to think, I don't even know what I think. Should gay marriage be legal? Beats me.
On the one hand, people should be allowed to do what they want. If a bunch of suckers think marriage is the answer to anything, that's their privilege. They'll soon find out to the contrary.
Considering the number of couples who live together and have children without marriage, the institution has almost entirely been emptied of significance. The son of a friend of mine who is trying to sever one of these relationships--they have two children together--is finding it as much trouble as getting a divorce.
The only concern I have about gay marriage is what the consequences might be. What other arrangements might the courts find inherent in that great Constitution in the Sky? Do we have the right to two mates? Could you marry your sister? Your pet (sorry, animal companion)? Your bridge club or bowling league?
Can you imagine how difficult and complicated it could be to divorce your entire Block Association? Or the Toastmasters Club of North Wilmington?
The trouble is, once Pandora's box is opened, it is difficult to get it shut again.
Welcome, Carnival of the Insanities readers!
Posts
7 comments:
I don't see the Pandora's Box here. I've never understood the objections to gay marriage. I do think government ought not to be in the marriage business. Why should they allow or disallow who or why we marry?
Damned if I know. I just feel we should move slowly to enact changes that can't be reversed. Just a hunch.
I'm with Mr. Stanley here.
So what if some people would want to marry their lab? Don't we have laws concerning cruelty to animals? And if some guy decides to imitate that Austrian sicko who kept his daughter a sex slave in his basement and fathered his grandkids - we already have laws of the age of consent.
There are so many laws in effect already - no need to invent new ones. Let people mind their own business.
I can't help but think it's a bit off to compare something like gay relationships where it is a consenting adult couple involved in normal healthy legal lifestyles with things like incest and beastiality. The fact that you try and link homosexuality with deviant and illegal sex practises to me is a bit homophobic. Sorry.
A marriage is a legal contract. It is enforceable in court and cannot be dissolved except by legal means. It affects financial responsibilities such as inheritance and custody arrangements, among other things.
Marriage is not just rose petals and champagne.
I'm sorry, I just saw your post and had to comment.
Marriage may be a legal contract but more than being just that, it is also an agreement between two individuals that wholly depends on the said two. There should be no law disallowing the two from getting married as their marriage affects nobody but them and it their business alone.
Our country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state. Most of us fled from the persecution that was the result of a set state religion. So here we find ourselves arguing an issue that does not need to be argued. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is a breech of their religious freedom. The only argument against it is in accordance to a religious view. I believe that the government should stick to the state institution and the people should make their own decisions regarding the church (religion) institution.
Post a Comment