Reply #63: a word about gay marriage [View All]

[TorchTheWitch]

I don't get the statement about gay marriage...

A man and a woman can reproduce, and if they come together and commit to raising a family to perpetuate society then I can see us giving them some tax breaks and such. They may not have kids, may not want them, but in general such a union has a byproduct which helps to perptuate society. I don't mind gay people being able to adopt, have civil unions, and all that stuff. None of my business really. My only concern is that marriage in a legal and society sense was meant to (imho) encourage people to unite for a common cause - to raise a family and perpetaute the society. Only a man and woman can do that (again, does not mean they will or will want to).
I am not opposed to gay marriage because I think it will kill society or bring the wrath of god and all that crap, I simply think that tax breaks and associated things for marriage are an investment in all of society. Gays can't reproduce and so there is no chance it will pay off in a broad scale.

Basically, what's being said here is that you're against it due to reproduction - i.e., that two persons of the same sex can't reproduce. So what? Marriage has ALWAYS been about uniting families in finance. All this about reproduction adding to society, blah, blah, blah, is a bunch of crap. If that's the excuse to be against gay marriage, then you should also be against anyone being able to legally wed if they're beyond their reproductive years or unable to reproduce or even UNWILLING to reproduce.

Especially considering how 50% of marriages in America end in divorce, I fail to see how even male/female marriages (particularly those that produce children) are beneficial to society. In fact, considering that it is more likely that a divorced couple with children will seek government help as a result of the failed marriage, it could be argued that it is more beneficial to society to LIMIT marriages between men/women BECAUSE they can produce children as it is more likely that if/when the marriage fails, government help will be needed... thereby being a burden to society to be responsible for contributing to the feeding, housing, clothing, baby-sitting and education of those children.

If one is to be against gay marriage due to a reproductive issue, then logically, one must also be against ANY marriage that can't/won't result in reproduction. But it's clear that this is not your true feelings.

It doesn't need to be said that banning gay marriage is totally unconsitutional... just as it would be to ban ANY group of people from benefitting from whatever perks people can receive who are NOT part of that group. We went through this with African Americans as I recall (remember the civil war?)... what is the difference of the past discrimination against African Americans and the discrimination of any OTHER specific group? First it was the Jews/African Americans/women, and now its the homosexuals... it's all discrimination, and it's all unconstitutional.

And kindly spare me the excuse of "that's not what the founding fathers had in mind" crap... the founding fathers kept African Americans as slaves, and women had zero rights as well. They wrote the constitution for WHITE MEN only, but society changes, doesn't it? As it has, we've recognized that fact and adjusted the laws accordingly. If America wants to go backward toward a WHITE MEN only constitution, then I want no part of America, and I would suspect that you wouldn't either. I would have far more respect for you if you just admitted that gays marrying makes you uncomfortable, and/or a flood of marrying gays alarms you because you believe it would deplete the resources of other groups already allowed to receive perks/tax breaks/assistance... thereby making less available perks/tax breaks/assistance for YOU.

I'm going to repeat this so you'll be sure not to miss it:

I would have far more respect for you if you just admitted that gays marrying makes you uncomfortable, and/or a flood of marrying gays alarms you because you believe it would deplete the resources of other groups already allowed to receive perks/tax breaks/assistance... thereby making less available perks/tax breaks/assistance for YOU.

That's it, isn't it? THAT'S your real problem with accepting the right of gays to marry... because one way or another you believe it will effect YOU PERSONALLY. After all, if we let them suck up a lot of perks and tax breaks that makes less for YOU, right? You WANT to exclude fellow American citizens from thinning out the bennies that YOU are already allowed to get. Rather selfish, don't you think?

PC excuses are historical... you recall the excuses of people being against freedom for the African Americans because they weren't intelligent enough to take care of themselves, that they needed and would be better off being under the control of whites? How about those politically correct excuses people used against women being allowed to work or vote or even have their own bank account because they needed to be "looked after" by men? They were just excuses people used to avoid being revealed as bigots... but that's exactly what they were, PC excuses or not. Your reproductive issue as an excuse is just as illegitimate as the age old excuses against African Americans and women. If you are really honest with yourself, that cannot be denied. It would actually be preferable if you just admitted that you PREFER a specific group of people to be discriminated against due to your bigotted views and/or fear of there not being enough perks or assistance to go around for you and the others in your group of "worthy people". Drawing dividing lines between AMERICAN CITIZENS according to who you or your group or your party believe are "worthy" is pretty damn anti-American, isn't it?