My Take on Ghey MarriageSubmitted by Molusk on Sat, 06/29/2013 - 01:47
I do support civil unions between any consenting people but I agree with those who point out that marriage has always had a specific definition. It has always, in whatever form it took, been related to the issue of children. As an institution in the context of history and culture, it had no meaning or necessity outside of children and their legal status, the transmission of property, etc.
Homosexuality has always been present, and in the ancient world was more or less acceptable and open, not in the 'closet.'
But the thought never occurred to anyone, as far as I am aware, in all these centuries that a man could marry a man or a woman a woman. And hopefully once it is legalized, the issue will fall out of the popular dialogue since it is inherently ridiculous and only a tiny teeny fraction of homosexuals would even want to get married if it wasn't something they were being excluded from.
The sooner the issue is removed from the political field as a distraction and as a rallying point for more identity politics, the better.
If it takes universal legal gay marriages to never have to hear about this goofy fad again, I totally support it. It is a distraction, an embarrassment, and one of the greatest acts of mass trolling in history (by the gay community).
Twenty years ago, the whole feminist and homo chic idea was that marriage was oppressive, a form of patriarchal slavery. I guess when no one paid attention to this resentful b1tching, they decided well hey if we can't beat them, let's dress up in tuxes and try to demean marriage, to rub it in the face of 'hetero' normal traditional society, as long as we are excluded.
It is also a means of empowering the gay mafia that uses homosexuals as a means to its political power, the same way other minority groups are exploited by their elites and forced to renounce their individuality for group solidarity. They are presented with a unifying issue, contrived or otherwise, and the "enemy" is always the majority painted as oppressive bigots.
With these demagogic devices, the gay mafia is able to enforce ideological lockstep on any homosexual who wants to be 'out' and not be shunned and treated as a social pariah in the synthetic, enforced 'gay culture' manufactured by the media and gay bullies.
With that said, it's also important to point out that nothing is changing. Marriage had already lost its traditional meaning and context, and the primacy of children and legal relations -- had already been dead, in essence, long before sexual deviants decided to feed on its corpse.
Marriage was already re-defined as a kind of social status symbol to demonstrate mutual affection and bonds, and ceased being focused mainly on the legal status of children and property. So this doesn't really reflect any fundamental moral shift any religious person needs fret over. That train already left the station decades ago.
On a practical note and with an eye to the future as always, I would propose the following.
For giggles, and as a form of counter trolling and counter revolutionary protest, those of a satirical bent could file lawsuits on the same precedent as the DOMA ruling, to permit polygamy and cousin marriage, just to make people uncomfortable and ruffle PC feathers. And tie up the courts and ridicule them.
The principle will go out the window when groups without special rights and protected cultural status try to use it.
Who could use more of a boost to their civil rights than cousins and who want to marry and polygamists? We shall overcome!
My two cents anyway.