| 
lol-well i was watching larry king the other day and they had this gay guy who wanted to get married, a priest, the mayor of california who was granting marriage licenses to gays, and a senator lady who was opposed to gay marriage.
i am against discrimination, but the main argument is that allowing gays to marry is going to lead to the "destruction of the act of marriage," by sort of making its definition so broad that it will lead to other things, like polygamy and such, until marriage really doesn't mean anything anymore.
i for one think this is a kind of weak argument, but i can see the point that they are trying to make--so the choice seems to be, discriminate against gays who want to get married, or redifine marriage until its definition eventually starts to blur and become unclear and very general. instead of between a man and a woman, now it is between a man and a man, and pretty soon itll be multiple men, multimple men and women, etc.--as long as it is mutual concent, i suppose.
i really doubt that something this crazy would happen, but people are so adamant about holding onto their traditional values that they fear any small chance of losing their precious conception of classical marriage.
here is my suggestion--get rid of marriage altogether. its just a stupid ceremony anyway, and its only purpose is really to keep religious people happy. i suppose i agree that the government should not have any control on marriage, but let the church be in charge of that, so it becomes a matter of the church discriminating against gays. i don't know about what can be done about this, but i mainly think that the people who are so opposed to gays getting married are mostly homophobic old men who like to dress up in their wive's underwear when no one's home.
if they didn't have something against gays in general, none of these kind of stupid arguments about this horrible "redefining of the word marriage" would hold much ground i don't think.
"You are reading this."
|
and will always have the final say. 
