Gay Marriage

This issue of Gay Marriage pops up in the news every so often and always draws a rapid and visera response from the rigth wing of the country. Ignoring the emotion I ask, like most resonable people what's the problem. I usually get four answers. Lets go over and them now.



Answer I one is almost ineverably childern. Marriage is to make childern and raise them into society.



This answer is the most easily destroyed. I'm going to attack it on two fronts.



A: The most obvious response is how can a same sex couple produce a child and how does outlawing marriage prevent this? Biological claims aside they are having childern (artifical insemination being a popular choice and with plenty of other options) or aquiring them (adoption). So these couples who want them have them, or are working on aquiring them. How does dening them legal rights and responsiblity help their childern?



Of course the claim of childern falls pretty flat even without this logic. There is no requirement in marriage for the couple to have childern (or even be capable of having them).



B: Is a more complex argument. People claim that the optimal for childern is to have two parents, one male one female. A traditional family unit.



Alright, I'll accept that as stated for the purpose of this debate. Mom + Dad = Good.



Well our society dosn't just use that as the deciding purpose for weither or not childern should be allowed to remain with their parents. In fact childern will remove be removed from their hetrosexual parents in a number of circumstance (abuse, unsafe conditions, neglect, ect). This reduces the par from what is best for childern to what isn't bad for childern.

We accept single parents of either gender. That child is absent one view of the sexes that people claim is so important. Yet we allow those parents to keep their childern. In fact it's been shown some groups of two sex parents are better at raising childern than others. Why are we not removing childern from the lesser groups and inserting them into the superior groups?



I could go into more detail but that sums up the point. Childern are allowed to grow up under less than optimal situations with removal. Again this reifnorces the idea that childern are allowed to remain in non optimal, non adverse situations.



So we've accepted that homosexual unions are non optimal for childern. Are they bad enough to be considered adverse enough to require their removal? As many homosexual couples have childern the answer is no.



In fact research shows that such couples are often more prepared for the arrival of such childern because of the difficulties in having them.



Answer II Cheapens Marriage in General. I don't get this one.

I could list many many things that cheapns traditional marriage. (Las Veags, divorce, celebritay marriage, pre nups, ect). None of these things seem to cheapen marriage. Many people still enter into it with all faifth and sencreity. How does someone with a different belief from you cheapen it?

Even within our country we have two examples I feel are very appropiate: Convent marriages and Poligamy.

Convent Marriages sound nice until you consdier the terms of this marriage basically say that the man is always right and the woman's duty is simply to serve him. In effect she is agreeing to be his slave. Without recourse.

Pologmy, typically tied to one church, is tghe pratice of aquiring multiple wives.

Neither of these are mainstream, but both have biblical support debending on how you read your bible. Many would consider these both of these cheapening marriage. While one is legal and the other is not, both happen here in America and people hear little of either.

Would not gay marriage simply make a big splash and then fade back beneath the waves so to speak as it has in Massachutes? After all Homosexual couples happen across all 50 states. What difference would it make to you if a couple has chosen to legalize their relationship? Unless you where invited to their marriage how would you even know?

Answer III Violates Nature: Personnely I love it when people state this one. At least online where I can easily post links showing my point:

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.000-queer-creatures.html

Answer IV: God/relgion. This one is probally the easiest to shake. My answer is: Who's god?

The logic comes down to as follows: Our society allows anyone to get married with a few very simple rules, regardless of culture. Muslims, Jews, Chrisitians (of any demonination), hindus, wiccans, and even athetisits are all allowed to marry and enjoy the legal rights granted under those laws. Our laws and constitution guarentte it.

None of those people share the same beleifs or god(s) or even agree there are any. Some of these groups are directly opposed to one another theologically. Yet they can claim the same rights under the law.

So in closing I say this: Personnely I couldn't care less. As a straight atheists it seems a big waste of time. But I beleive in equality. So either enforce these rules upon all members or drop the objection

Little About Me

I'm not going to pull any punches here. I am not a christian.. I have desperatly tried to be a chrisitian. It didn't work as a child or as a high school student pursuing a christian. The logic that has always been my greatest strength cound't stand these attempts. I always found the flaws and never saw the light, even when desperate to find it.

Now it's time to be me. And that path lead me to renounce all that was forced on me (childhood) and what I tried to become (what guys do for girls...). Following that path and then breaking with it showed me many things. Lessons learned and all that. Now let me pass those lessons on or at least scare the hell out of the faifthful (Something I'm good at). Maybe I can save a mind or two.

I reject Chrisitanity, Judiasm, and Islam as false relgions. I have never encountered a relgion I would label as true, but these are the only ones I inherinatly (so far) reject. I named this blog for the worst of them.

That said I have no problem with relgion in general. I don't even care if you beleive in one of those. But the moment you trt to make anyone else beleive as you do I have a serious problem with you.