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, related to the issue of children, inheritance, 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. i
f 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 the greatest act of trolling in history (by the gay community).
20 years ago the whole feminist and homo chic idea was that marriage was oppressive/patriarchal slavery, and when no one paid attention they decided well F it let's dress up in tuxes and try to demean marriage to rub it in hetero normal society's face as long as we are excluded.
also... 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 long ago, so this doesn't really reflect any fundamental moral shift any religious person needs to fret over. that horse already left the barn.
what i would support for giggles would be a massive counter trolling by lawsuits on the same precedent to permit polygamy and relative marriage by consenting adults, to just make people uncomfortable. the principle will go out the window when groups without special rights try to use it.
my two cents anyway.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: