Been away from the boards for a few days, but I’m not surprised this issue is still going. Remember, this thread is about whether gay marriages should be sanctioned by the state, not about making them illegal. Let’s be clear on one thing. Most of our laws (except those that relate to safety) are based on what society thinks is moral. Morality is not the sole domain of the religious. All of you, every single one of you, have a moral code, whether it has its foundation in religious teaching or simply what you were taught by your parents. To say we shouldn’t legislate morality is ludicrous. Right now, we have laws against incest, pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, polygamy, and (in a few states here and countries overseas) sodomy. ALL of these were created based on what we as a society thought was moral, at least at the time. Yes, there were practical reasons for some of them, such as incest, but the bottom line in deciding was our morality.
Those who are for making marriage between homosexuals legal do so with arguments that could easily extend to the other categories of behavior I’ve mentioned. Incest? What two consenting adults to in private is none of our concern, right? “But they could have deformed children, so it’s different,” you say. What if one or both get “fixed” so they can’t? So, you have no reasonable argument against legalizing incestuous marriage. It should be okay, right? Laws against incest were made back before there was birth control and abortion, after all. And many great cultures of the past allowed it, especially in the case of maintaining pure bloodlines.
Pedophilia? Well, it’s only pedophilia because law defines the legal age of consent at some arbitrary value, based on society’s moral view. Change the legal age and it’s not pedophilia, at least in the legal sense. Consent? I had a science teacher in high school that certainly would have had the consent of most of the guys in my science class! She was a fox!
What about bigamy/polygamy? I mean, after all, what consenting adults do in private is up to them, and none of government’s business. It’s not against the law in most states here in the US to have a trio, so why can’t the three/four/five/six of them get married. They all love each other deeply, and deserve the same rights as monogamous heterosexual couples, right? So long as they can afford it, what’s the big deal?
Adultery? Well, it’s not a crime, but it is recognized as a civil offense in many states (those without no-fault divorce). Do you believe it is right or wrong? If it is wrong, do you support the right of one party to divorce with prejudice a spouse that cheats on their partner? Should we give some kind of legal union to a married person and their “other” flame? I mean, after all, if they truly love each other…er…others.
Beastiality? This one isn’t about legalizing marriage between a person and an animal, but we’re certainly moving in that direction. Did you know there is at least one state in the US that has declared that pets are not property, but “companions”? You’re not a “pet owner” anymore, but a “caretaker” now. “It’s about consent,” you say? Really? Do you have a pet dog or cat that you’ve had spade or neutered? Did you have their consent first? Did you get that cow’s okay before the slaughterhouse worker bashed it’s brains in and cut it up into entrée-sized chunks, sent it to your store so you could subject it to flame and eat it? No? Didn’t think so. So why is it illegal, when murdering the animal isn’t? The bottom line is that you think it’s morally wrong, and that’s why you’re against it. Face it. Oh, and many supposed great civilizations of the past allowed human-animal sex.
The bottom line is, marriage should be between a man and a woman. Extending that legal status to same-sex couples opens the door to a whole host of problems, and accelerates the further erosion of our society. Where will it stop?
