I Still Don't Get It

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 Bill O’Reilly, he does it so well). But while that may be the cultural norm, cultural norms fluctuate. Which is why legal rights and protections cannot be tied too tightly to cultural norms. Legal rights and protection have to be expansive enough to accommodate changes in society. This is why marriage laws do not hinge in any way on having children.

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.

Case closed; can we talk about rainbows and unicorns now? Or maybe the economy?

What is so hard to understand here? Marriage is a civil union under the law. Marriage as a religious matter, is whatever the designated religion deems it be, but legal marriage is already a civil union.

I completely understand (while vehemently disagreeing with) the Catholic Church never wanting to perform a same sex marriage. They’d never have to. There’s that wonderful church/state separation. But I do not understand, truly I do not, what the difference between the legal definition of marriage and a civil union is? Why must there be separate but equal statuses? What are these people so fucking afraid of?

I also truly do not understand what the big fucking opposition is anyway. Do those of you oppose marriage rights and civil unions really think that gay people are going away? They’re not. This tide’s coming in no matter what so can we just get on with the more important things in life and allow these good people to get on with what’s important to all of us? Creating and sustaining a family?

I’m trying to understand what the Connecticut case was about, but am completely lost as to the state’s attempt to differentiate between civil unions and civil marriage. I have never heard a logical, rational, common-sense argument in opposition to full marriage rights for all that I have ever understood. Two consenting adults meeting all other criteria (i.e. not related to each other and both being of mental capacity) want to hitch themselves to each other and all that that applies. And we argue more about that in this country than we did about forking over $700 billion to people who already fucked up the economy. Priorities, please?

In Florida, gay couples can foster a child but not adopt. How ridiculous is that? People who are opposed to gay adoption are mean to children who have no homes. People opposed to gay adoption must hate children. I see no other reason for this opposition. These people would rather little children have no family and be bounced around what is often a horrific foster care system. How is that not being mean to little children?

Thank you judges, for doing the right and legal thing. Three down, probably a few more and a Supreme Court ruling to go. The arguments against are ludicrous, nonsensical, and irrelevant. That dog just won't hunt no more.