Wednesday, February 11, 2004

There are two main thrusts to the argument for same sex marriage, and they contradict each other.

The initial thrust is that denying gays access to marriage to the partner of their choice is an affront to their dignity, makes them second class citizens, etc. Never mind that marriage is a statement about a relationship rather than people; their "feelings" are what's most important.

This usually leads to a stalemate between these feelings and the concerns by those opposed about what redefining marriage will do to the definition of it. Leading to...

The next thrust is the proponents insisting that marriage has nothing to do with children, and by extension, sex. In fact, this whole connection is an invention of social conservatives who are obsessed and hung up on sex. It's about "partnership" and "love." Sex and children have nothing to do with it, and you're some kind of pervert for thinking so.

Of course, this contradicts the initial argument that denying gays the right to marry someone of the sex they're attracted to is an affront to their dignity. If marriage isn't about sex, it shouldn't matter, should it? Gays should be free to form these loving partnerships that have nothing to do with sex or children with members of the opposite sex. It also makes one wonder what exactly they want "marriage" to mean. I'm committed to loving partnerships with lots of folks in my life, but I'm only married to one.

Well then, maybe sex and children do have something to do with marriage, and maybe we need to honestly consider what the impact of redefining marriage will have on children, don't we?
Post a Comment