Gay Marriage @ MindSay

"Sanctity of marriage" is another one of those phrases I hate. I hate it mostly becase "sanctity" implies "holiness". In theory, marriage is a bond between two people that should be valued and respected in society, what some people may regard as a "holy bond". That's just the problem with that argument-- it's in theory. The state is the one that authorizes marriage, and according to the good ol' Constitution, there is a distinct separation between church and state. So yes, in theory, marriage is a holy, sacred bond. In practice? It's a joining of two people by law.

 

And I don't even really think marriage is as "holy" as we make it out to be.

 

According to the Census Bureau, about 40% of all marriages ended in divorce. If we really want to get technical in "preserving the sanctity of marriage", why not go the old fashioned way and get rid of divorce? "Sanctity of marriage"? Wouldn't we be breaking that oh-so-sacred bond by getting rid of it? I think if we're going to protect the sanctity of marriage, we need to cover the entire spectrum, meaning us Heteros have gotta pick up our own slack and quit getting married for only 55 hours at a time.

 

Some people don't even get married in a church anymore! If we really want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage", let's just have everyone get married in a church from now on. That way, their marriage is 100% official because obviously it's holy if it was sanctioned by the church. Athiests? Sorry, not allowed. You gotta invest in the Lord if you want to be recognized as married to your partner, even if you are a hetero. How are you going to raise your children? As a bunch of Godless little hellions? Figures.

 

That brings me to my next argument-- child rearing. If children benefit the most from living in a home with both a mother and a father, then sperm banks need only be made available to couples who can't conceive (who, under the "Marriage is for babymaking" argument, shouldn't even be married anyway). If a single woman chooses to have a baby on her own, without the help of a man, then she is undermining the role of fathers in society and should have a psychiatric evaluation. She's also undermining the value of marriage, just like those homosexual couples that want to adopt a child and raise it in a good, loving home. It won't learn proper gender roles that way! It won't learn that girls play with Barbie and boys play with Hot Wheels! It won't learn that sometimes Daddy thinks it's okay to belittle Mommy and call her names! Proper gender roles, what the fuck is this, the 1950's?

 

In conclusion, we've got to go all-or-nothing on this sanctity of marriage thing, because frankly, it's not something you can half-ass without obviously favoring one group over the others.

 

 

Please not where and when I was being sarcastic.

The article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

My response?:
I agree with the California Supreme Court’s decision 100% because I believe that no one has the right to limit someone’s rights on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or for any other reason. We are all people; furthermore, we are all Americans, and it is our Constitution, more specifically Amendment 14, which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” How can we truly be the “land of the free” if we deny the basic right of marriage to American citizens? How can we tell other countries how they should be run if we can’t even live up to our own standards set forth by the founders of our country? America was founded on the basis of freedom, and for any American citizen to have more rights than another is a disgrace not only to the Founding Fathers, but also to ourselves as the most powerful and influential nation in the world.

andreux sends us some breaking news from California, where the State Supreme Court has overturned the state's ban on gay marriage.  Same-sex couples were previously only allowed to marry in Massachusetts, while 27 other states have bans specifically on such unions. 

California is of course the most populous state in the US, and as the LA Times indicates, more than 100,000 same-sex couples are effected by the ruling.

Do you think this opens the gates for other states to move to legalize gay marriage?  Or will it have the reverse effect and lead more states to ban it, and Washington politicians to demand a new amendment to the Constitution to override the state's decisions?

be considered wrong? as far as im concerned..love is NEVER wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

support LGBT rights...unless you are a close-minded asshat..then you can just fuck off..and consider this..its technically gay if you play with youself

P!nk in 2004:

 "If you want to marry 'Joe Millionaire,' go ahead. If you're a celebrity and you want to marry your high school sweetheart for a couple of hours, go right ahead. If you're J.Lo and you want to marry 18 people for six days each, hey go right on ahead! But if you happen to be reasonably minded and have fallen in love and want to marry your soul mate and make a life of it - and you just so happen to be the same sex - then, no, how dare you! You demon creatures! We'd rather you just buy gasoline and support our war and continue to consume and fear in our country so we can make money off you. But do us a favor: Don't hold hands in public."