On Gay Marriage
Mr. John D, it’s amusing that you’ve expounded on that which you accuse others of ignorance in a manner that’s nothing short of ignorant. You’ve misrepresented all the arguments from the other side.
Firstly, nobody is trying to take away anyone’s happiness — if that’s what you heard from some Pat Robertson-type, feel free to laugh at them, as those types are obviously tools. See, the state has exactly zero interest in two people shacking up, unless they’re doing so to have kids, in which case the state would do well to take an interest — today’s children being tomorrow’s taxpayers.
In other words, be happy, knock yourself out, nobody should stop you (unless what you’re doing is illegal), but your happiness is, for the state, of little interest, and therefore scarcely deserves codification.
Secondly, opponents of gay marriage aren’t like those who’ve opposed interracial marriage during the years of segregation. Among other reasons why this is a false analogy (and, damnit, there are many reasons why this is a false analogy!) is that if by ‘marriage’ we mean that which is recognized by the state, then interracial marriage — or whatever kind of marriage where procreation is possible — is, because of the children, beneficial to the state, and therefore should be encouraged by it. Again, that 2 people love each other a lot isn’t enough for the government to take an interest; it’s in the fact of the possibility of kids where it should, since, again, those children are the state’s (or country’s) future.
Well using that logic, we shouldn’t allow those who can’t have kids to get married too, one retorts. Indeed we shouldn’t. But research on the technology that will allow us to read people’s minds and peer into their futures is still in its nascency, so perhaps in time.
That all being said — surprise! — *I’m not against gay marriage*. I’m against willfully misrepresenting your opponents arguments, something you’ve clearly done and should apologise for (and perhaps retract your self-righteous rant).
I believe gay people CAN have children through other, let’s say, ‘unnatural’, means, and therefore will need, in the event, all the benefits the state can grant to be able to raise those children well. So I’m hoping it isn’t all smoke and mirrors and that they want the benefit of the institution of marriage precisely for those reasons — to be able to raise children well — and not just for their own self-fulfillment, about which the state shouldn’t give a whit.
That last paragraph being said, it’s still an undeniable fact that the ideal setting in which a child be raised is with his biological father and mother, making therefore the union between a man and a woman the ideal one when it comes to children.