This is not an argument made out of bigotry, or ignorance of what it entails for gay people. I understand that gay people want marriage very much, and I think that that is an important value. But society is made of a lot of large groups of people who want things very much, indeed as much as gay people want to get married. If--and it is a big if--allowing gays to marry would undercut the institution of marriage, then I would be against it no matter how unhappy this made gay people.
It's not your decision. Do you get that? You don't get to decide who deserves to marry and who doesn't. Who has civil rights and who doesn't. It's not your life, it's not your choice. If you are so concerned about the perpetuation of marriage, get married.
3 comments:
If--and it is a big if--allowing gays to marry would undercut the institution of marriage
Demon rum also undercuts the institution of marriage, as do rights for women, blow-up dolls and vacations with the boys/girls.
To quote Megan, Jesus wept. How sloppy can one writer be? If allowing gays to marry is a threat to the institution of marriage, she would be against it. Whoopdy-do. If the entire idea of marriage would crumble, causing the fall of civilization, yeah, sure, I'd be against it too. If it was going to unleash an outbreak of the plague, I'd be against it, too. But hell, if she's going to definitively state that she'd be against something if it had negative effects on something else, go into the beeping reasons! State the (non-existent) reasons how gay marriage would undercut heterosexual marriage before just writing "if there were bad consequences, I'd object."
I've found that equal rights undercuts marriage also. If the woman isn't dependent on the husband, she might divorce him. Therefore all married women should be fired.
I wonder what Megan's reasons would be, if she could be bothered to think of any. Maybe she's worried that--no, I can't think of a single thing that gay marriage would do to hetero marriage.
Post a Comment