
Marriage. That's when a man loves a woman and they get hitched.
That's it, that's what it is. What, you don't like that?
Sorry!
Maybe it's not for you. Maybe you're a man who likes men! Hey, crazier things have happened, right? It's all good, I'll still have a taco with you at Tito's, no big deal. That's not my thing, but that's why you're not me, right?
Society at large has come around quite a bit. They recognize that a lot of men are falling for other men. And a lot of women are diggin' other chicks. The latter, I get it. The former? Hey, like I said, it's not my thing. But I digress.
I recognition of these other living arrangements, society has extended every single legal right that automatically comes with marriage to gay and lesbian couples. You want your partner to inherit everything when you die? You can have it. You want to be able to make medical decisions for one another? Have at it! Co-ownership of property? It's yours! The framework and structure is already in place whereby all of this, and more, can be yours! Here, it's wonderful, read all about it here!
Ain't society great? All tolerant 'nstuff?
But it's still not marriage.
Why?
Because marriage is when a man loves a woman and they get hitched. I mean, that's just what it IS.
There's a big old legal fight being waged out here in California right now over this definition. Unsatisfied with just having all the benefits and rights that married couples have, gay couples now want the TITLE. Why? Because, if you don't change that definition for them, as they demand, you're a hate-monger.
Huh?
Yeah, you intolerant bastid, you are consumed with hate and loathing and frankly deserve to die if you don't want to redefine "marriage" to placate the Gay community.
Sigh. It's so silly, really. But whatever, the Gay community can think whatever they want of me, I guess. Now that this definition is up for vote- AGAIN- in California, I'm going to go ahead and vote for calling a potato a potato (proverbially speaking) and let the gay community call me whatever they please.
Look, I'm being a bit light about it, but it's a serious issue. Marriage is what it is. A lot of people are surprisingly lax on this issue; they say, what's the big deal if we just nudge the boundaries of that definition a little, to appease those who want in on that title?
Well, where do we stop nudging once we've nudged it that far?
I mean, if our definition of marriage changes from "man and woman" to "willing adult and willing adult", it begs all kinds of other questions. What if THREE "willing adults" want to marry? If we grant it to two, we HAVE to grant it to three, don't we? If that's what they want? Aren't we hate mongers if we don't? And what if a guy wants to marry his sister- both of them over 18, both willing? What kind of angry, red-faced, hate-filled sonsabitches are we if we refuse that to them?
Another thing, if I may wax a bit serious here. This isn't just about the definition of marriage. Once the definition is LEGALLY changed, the floodgates are open to persecute you in the legal arena if your morals disagree with this fancy new definition. You think this is paranoid ramblings? Ask the Catholics- they had to pull their adoption services out of Massachusetts once marriage was redefined there. It went like this:
1) Catholics teach homosexuality is wrong, and cohabitation is wrong, and only grant adoptions to married couples.
2) Gay marriage is legalized.
3) Gays approach the Catholics and say, "Hey tricked ya! We're married now, so you have to give us spawn." Catholics say, "Nope, whatever you call it, it's still immoral."
4) Gay couples sue.
5) Massachusetts tells Catholics they have no legal right to their moral stance.
6) Rather than fold on their principals, Catholic Charities pull out of Massachusetts.
Oh here, read it for yourself.
Scary. You will be LEGALLY MANDATED on your practices if they are faith-based.
Also, contrary to what the Gay Lobby is proclaiming, Gay Marriage WILL be taught in the schools as being on equal footing with Straight marriage. It's already happening in Massachusetts- and parents are being told, "Tough crap, it's legal and we'll teach your kids this if we want and you have no say on the matter."
No.
This is silly.
I encourage you Californians to flock to the polls by tomorrow night and vote this silliness away. I literally cannot believe I live in a state where this is even something that has to be voted upon, but it is, and it's looking like this measure will fail if you believe the polls. So here you have it. A rare endorsement from HappyBack for all my readers. Vote Yes on Prop 8.
Marriage is what it is. I'm very sorry if that hurts your tender feelings. But I am going to take my hate-filled, angry heart and saunter on down to the voting booth and cast a vote for marriage remaining marriage. Then I think I'll go pet some fluffy puppy dogs cause I'm angry like that.


5 comments:
I agree with you 100%! I don't know if you read my blog at all but I have done some posts with pictures of my husband and I sign waving for Yes on 8 on street corners. We will be casting our Yes votes tomorrow as well.
It really bugs me when people call me intolerant. When they are being intolerant of MY beliefs. But what REALLY gets me is how they are comparing this to the Cival Rights Movement and other racial discriminations throughout history. Only last time I checked, being Gay was not a Race. It is a lifestyle choice.
Anyway...thanks for this post! It was awesome! I am going to link you on my blog.
Another reason to vote Yes on Prop 8--
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html
this is my "i refuse to comment on this issue" comment.
my brain hurts from it all. my heart is tired of it. and i don't even live in the stupid state of california.
The part about marriage and love is incorrect. Most marriages throughout history were not about love. Marriage was a "practical" and business like matter. The combination of love and marriage is a relatively modern occurrence. Marriage rarely was the romantic thing we seem to think it is today.
It's interesting though that not even once in the whole history of humans that marriage has always been between a man and woman. Even in ancient Greece and Rome at the height of when love between men was considered the ultimate kind of love possible...marriage was only between men and women.
Actually, I'm right. Love has been an essential part of the marriage arrangement throughout history. But you're right to imply that it's not always the case.
There are cases where politics or business intervene, and marriage has been used as a tool in these transactions. But even when most of the upper-class were arranging marriages for their children or marrying to unify royal households, the lower-class 9who were far more numerous) were free to find their own women and marry them as they saw fit.
You are also right to point out the most important part: NEVER has marriage been anything other than man-woman. (Or man-women, as in early Mormon culture or modern-day cultures in Africa and the middle-east.)
This man-man or woman-woman movement is the first social experiment of its kind.
Post a Comment