Thursday, June 11, 2009

Gay Marriage - Why Should They Be Happy?

“In the State of (state name here) marriage shall be defined as a permanent union of two people for the purpose of establishing a shared household. Marriages performed during ceremonies administered by civil authority shall have the same rights and privileges as those performed by recognized religious authority.”

That is my all-purpose proposed wording for a marriage statute free for use by any state legislature. I read as many arguments, pro and con, regarding gay marriage and really haven’t found one that I find persuasive. So I quit. I say let homosexuals marry if they so choose. After all, why should they be happy?

Seriously, I can no longer understand why any two people should not have the opportunity to try to create a life together and share their material gains. Homosexuals will have no more success at this endeavor than the rest of us. In fact, they will probably have less success. The homosexual culture is one that has promoted promiscuity forever. And that aspect of the culture will win out over monogamous relationships. If monogamy has lost out to promiscuity among heterosexuals (and it has), even with several millennia worth of teaching to the contrary, how can it be expected to overcome a culture of gay baths and other promiscuous practices the homosexual community sees as it’s own unique virtues?

You may ask, what about the children? Our society has failed it’s children on so many levels, one more failure won’t make a difference. The easing of divorce laws has done more to damage our children than homosexual marriage ever will. People who vehemently oppose homosexual marriage now should ask themselves where they were when divorce was made no more difficult than obtaining a building permit. Hell, nowadays getting a building permit is more difficult than breaking up a family. My two daughters (9 & 5) are never going to learn what is properly to be expected from a man when they are older, because they have no everyday example to show them.

The decay we as a society have infused into our society for the last forty years has rotted out the foundations beyond the point of repair, at least in my opinion. Our children are growing up in a culture that desires only it’s own short term pleasure and constant, instant gratification. If I knew then, what I know now, I would’ve left my ex-wife at the table in the restaurant where we had our first date.

Homosexuals will come to learn soon enough that the rights and privileges of marriage that they so desired, aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Personally I can’t wait to see a few homocelebrities wading through and wailing about their impending divorces. I try not to engage in schadenfreud, but I will relish this when it comes about. And after 5 years or so, homosexual marriage will be seen to have been just a fad. So I encourage the defenders of marriage to cease your objections, we conservatives have bigger fish to fry.


2pennies said...

I disagree vehemently. Although I support civil unions, calling them marriages is both incorrect and wrong. And conservatives should not give up this fight.

Auguste Ballz said...

Well then how about calling it "civil matrimony" performed by the state and "holy matrimony" performed by the religious authority of choice? With a provision protecting churches, etc. from being sued in order to force them to perform ceremonies for any pair a church, etc. finds to be outside their creed? Is that semantically satisfactory?

2pennies said...

it is much deeper than simple semantics. It goes to the re-definition of a bedrock institution of humanity. That is worth fighting for.

Auguste Ballz said...

I agtree about the importance of the institution of marriage. But what i am saying is the fight for that institution was lost long ago. The complete erasure of divorce laws that made it hard to obtain one reduced the idea (and practice) that marriage is a covenant relationship to a mere contractual one.

In order for two people to get married, both have to agree to do it. Current divorce laws ensure that only ONE person has to want a divorce in order to bring it about. This is what has rendered marriage essentially meaningless in today's world. The battle to defend marriage was fought and lost a couple of decades ago. What we are seeing now with every deviant group seeking marital rights are just the consequences of losing that battle.

I believe marriage is for 1 man & 1 woman only -til death do they part. But the society that has evolved during my lifetime thnks it knows better. Divorce killed marriage. It is a "dead parrot" no matter how many people try to prop it up and point out it's "beautiful plumage."

James J. Benoit said...

Hello there Auguste, I'm finished withthe school portion of Europe, dang those professors wore us out daily! It was great though. I'm in Paris and will update all that care about our Euro-friends. I Italian guy that didn't speak English tried to tell me how evil George Bush is/was...apparently the brainwashing by CNN World is working...he made gun motions like Bush was shooting, I informed him I'm a Texan and I liked Presidents that shoot when need be. He gave me a curious look and got off at the next stop. I say "Mission Accomplished"!

Post a Comment