Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote, adding, “As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
I still don’t get it.
Legal marriage (not religious ceremony) has nothing to do with procreation. You can have a child without being married. You can be married and not have a child. You can be an excellent parent without being married. You can be the shittiest parent alive while being married. The legal definitions of marriage (which is all same-sex couples are fighting for) have absolutely nothing to do with having or raising children.
Culturally, marriage is held up to be the proper way to prepare for having children. It is generally thought to be the correct first step before throwing the pills out the window. Unless you’re Bristol Palin or Jamie Lynn Spears, but that’s another story (and one best told by
Lesbian couples have no more barriers to having children than infertile hetero couples or single women do. They can go to their corner sperm bank and withdraw what they need to make baby. And nothing in the law can do diddly-squat to prevent them from raising it. All that the existing laws can do is make a mess of the situation if the women break up since there aren’t standard divorce proceedings available to them. So it follows that the only people opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to keep from raising kids are gay males. Can everyone just be honest about that fact? Can everyone just admit that for some unfathomable reason you aren’t opposed to same-sex marriage, you’re opposed to boy butt sex? ‘Cause given what opponents’ arguments are, that’s the only logical conclusion.
Get over it.
No comments:
Post a Comment