Gay Marriage

The problem with this is both sides presuppose that the government has the power to define and regulate who is, or can, be married.

I think that it's a religious matter and if your church forbids homosexuals to marry then be content that they will burn in hell for their sins, God even says that's how He wants things to run since the judgement is His alone. Read your Bibles! The atheist should not be the one pointing this out to you. If your church says Tom and Dave can love each other and be husband and, er, husband; then God will punish them if they are wrong. It's not my business.

You can easily make it a contractual thing. I think the reason we haven't is it would allow polygamy. Religion once again encroaching on the state.

Male-female marriage might deserve a special spot under law because it's a good idea for society to have its own kind breeding. "We are married and intend to reproduce, please give us our tax break for furthering our society." If we came out and said it and then did it so that the productive members of society benefitted from having kids then perhaps we'd see less of The Shitheel model of sloppy reproduction. Imagine if you got a 50% tax break for having an income above $35k and porked a child! Imagine no additional break if you paid no net taxes.

Comments:




5th-Apr-2009 09:48 pm (local)



ravenclaw_eric

Frankly, even though I can understand the pro-gay-marriage arguments well enough, I think that expecting the courts to always be overriding the legislatures is a tactic that's going to backfire one of these days. It already has in quite a few states, where court decisions to allow gay marriage have led ineluctably to state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only.

If the gays were willing to call what they want a civil partnership, I think they'd have long since had what they really want. Unfortunately, some of them are so militant that they would rather wreck the whole thing than compromise on one word.