This is a silly basis for a revolution: “If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.”
Saying that the point of life is reproduction is admitting that you think life is a meaningless slog.
On Saturday I posted on the blog that I felt it was the time for the GOP to live up to its ideals about “maximized individual liberty” and stop the fight against gay marriage.
My readers proceeded to call me a communist.
We need a political re-alignment in this country.
Your readers are so conservative, they’re still using meaningless knee-jerk epithets from the 1950s!
“Listen up, wise guy. You’re a communist, see? Get ‘em boys!”
Reproduction was there long before the Constitution and is likely to be taking place much after the Constitution ceases to exist. You’re a brilliant programmer but you’re obviously very much out of your element in this discourse.
Let’s see…
Because there is reproduction, the innocent who are the result of such reproduction require certain protection and yes, we want them to have it.
You are looking at it from the erroneous perspective of “marriage”, as if the goal was to protect the progenitors. It isn’t.
It’s about the offspring. It’s about the institution of “family” working for the benefit of the children.
Most left-wingers have understood this point just as little as most right-wingers. Pity. It’s really within every thinking person’s grasp.
It serves no one to equate “reproduction” with “copulation” as you do in your original post. That’s the mistake most of us gays make, whether left or right leaning.
As far as being a communist goes, I feel sorry for those who must resort to the name calling. Again, history has shown that the communist were just as far left as they were to the right. Most of the name called haven’t a clue about what they’re saying.
I am gay and in many ways, I am like anyone else. In many ways, I am different, too. My goal is self-fulfillment as a person. The right to marry? What for? To be like Mr. and Mrs. Jones? I’ll never be like them, who am I trying to kid?
Let’s close that debate, it isn’t helping us a damn bit.
I understand the argument. I disagree that it is the government’s job to promote one type of familial arrangement and deprecate others. The government exists to protect the rights of individuals.
If I had my way, marriage wouldn’t exist as a legal term. There would simply be contractual unions. In the meantime, eliminating governmental discrimination based on gender would be a swell first step.
It’s all about the offspring, not the progenitors, whose individual rights need to be protected. For better or for worse, a child has a right to know who his/her parents are and must be afforded the certainty that they cannot simply be exchanged on him/her. Imagine the mother walking out with the children and the child no longer having any rights to see his biological father, or vice-versa.
Again, it’s not the rights of the parents to form a more perfect union but the responsibilities of the parents in relation to the children.
In the end, it’s not a gay or straight issue. It’s about the most helpless in our societies.
As far as the semantics of marriage, I don’t think it’s worth discussing. Let the people call it what they will. There are so many real issues, semantics should be low in the list of priorities.
@RLK – the protections for gay marriage benefit all Americans, not just gay people. Simply stated – it’s not for you to say whether you want gay marriage instituted or not.. just as it’s not my place. It’s a human and civil right.
One’s inclination to opt in or opt out of the behavior in question has nothing to do with rights themselves. We have rights in order to keep our culture more open, adaptive and fair.
Fairness as a doctrine benefits everyone, not just those immediately benefitting from the policy.