Sunday, April 7, 2013

Thoughts on Marriage

Has there been a day in the past five or six months where the political conversation hasn't at least in part been dominated by the topic of "gay marriage?"

Somehow, the left has taken the concept of "Marriage," which has generally been defined as "A committed, legally binding relationship between a man and a woman, usually for the purpose of raising children," and changed the definition to whatever  suits their purpose at the moment.

At the present moment they want to redefine it to mean "A sort-of committed, easily broken relationship between two adult people, because they are in luv." What kind of evil, heartless person would deny two people the ability to luv each other in a marriage just because their parts are the same?

Well, you know, I kind of have a few objections, or at least a few questions.

For instance, in order for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus, they didn't have to rename it the "Integrated  Front of the Bus." They didn't have to redefine "front of the bus" to mean "the first four rows of seats plus some in the rear." It was still the front of the bus, just now Ms. Parks could sit there.

Likewise, when schools were integrated, they didn't have to rename them "Integrated Schools." You didn't have to add adjectives and qualifiers to the word "student" and call them "black students" and 'white students" and "students of whatever ethnic persuasion." They were just students.

Now we actually have to modify the word marriage to make it fit the changed circumstance: "Gay marriage." What will we call the people who are thus entwined? Will the person performing the ceremony pronounce them "Gay Husband and Gay Wife?" How will we know which is which?

I suppose they will try to force us to use the gender neutral word "spouse." I don't like this word or the way it sounds. It feels ugly coming off the tongue and I refuse to use it. This will likely annoy leftists no end, which will, obviously, reinforce the behavior for me.

Another problem I have is that the democRats, whom I like to call the Party of Science (POS), like to call on science when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. What I'd like to ask the POS is this: Over thousands of years, marriage has EVOLVED (scientific word) to denote a union between a man and woman. Since we are to believe that evolution is supposed to leave us with the brightest and strongest of all possible outcomes, why should we ignore it on this issue?

I also wonder why we couldn't have "Civil Unions." While the despicable Plessy v. Ferguson decision set up the concept of "Separate but Equal" with regards to racial access to services, again, you didn't have to redefine those services to allow different races to use them. I think, in this case, the concept of Separate but Equal might actually have some benefit. It would give the gay community the rights they say they're seeking: inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. You wouldn't have to create a new category of marriage just to placate a small but vocal minority, you could create a new legal status that would allow equal protection under the law without destroying a millennia-old institution just to make a few people feel better about themselves.

Yet another issue I have is again, with the redefinition of marriage. Where is that going to stop? When you start redefining things to please a small subset of people, other subsets will start agitating for their own redefinition. What will the POS say when NAMBLA starts agitating for the "right" to marry four year old boys? I know not everyone in the POS is a NAMBLA member, but I'd bet good money that the vast majority of NAMBLA members are in the POS. What about someone who wants to marry a dog? Or a goat? Will the POS be satisfied at any point before the definition of marriage includes the union of three men, four women, two chickens and a giant squid?

In the end, what I think it comes down to is an attempt by the gay community not for equality or acceptance or tolerance, but for approval. It's not enough that someone might look at their relationships and say, "I may not agree your lifestyle, but I accept that it is your right to choose it." What they really seem to want is for everybody to say, "Gee, what you're doing is awesome. It's so awesomely awesome that everybody should try it."

And frankly, that's not very likely to happen. Unless they can kill religion. Ever wonder why liberals hate religion so much? I think it's because it tells them there are things they should do. But that's another story for another time.

I'm just kind of tired of the whole discussion. I suspect it's being used as a distraction by the POS to keep us from looking too closely at the other things they're doing, like destroying the economy and looting the piggy banks of our grandchildrens' grandchildren.

And just wait until they're finished redefining "health care.

1 comment: