After the recent decision of the courts, i have contemplated greatly on the subject of marriage; the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment; and even the latest buzz-word: "marriage equality". I always taken a great pride in my ability to resist the ubiquitous internal weakness to "follow the herd", and this marriage debate is no different. Actually, i may be one of the very few people in this debate, who lacks even a modicum of stake in the outcome. I personally have nothing to gain, and personally nothing to loose.
Don't believe me?
Well then, allow me to introduce myself!
*FIRST* and foremost, i'm an atheist. Therefore, it should not surprise you that i don't believe marriage is "ordained by god" -- because, i don't believe such silly things -- just as i don't believe that Sasquatches exist, although i must admit, there is more compelling physical evidence of the latter, but i digress!
*SECONDLY*, i have never been, nor, will i ever subject myself to the freedom depriving nature of that evil known as "state sanctioned marriage". I'll be damned if i'm going to crawl before some slimy bureaucrat, or worst, some self-aggrandizing "messenger of god", and beg for either of them to recognize the merit of my love and commitment to another human being. I don't need anyone to grant me anything, and i sure don't need the state, or organized religion, to tell me what is "right" and what is "wrong" concerning my interpersonal relationships. They can all go to hell! Well, in a manner of speaking that is. ;-) I also feel that the concept of "state sanctioned marriage" is nothing more than wallpaper. Because without a solid substrate of love, commitment, and maturity, the marriage will inevitably fail. Therefore, the marriage becomes as worthless as the paper its printed on! It is not mere physical paper that elevates the concept of marriage to the realms of respectability -- no, i spit on your worthless paper! -- it's is the unshakable bond between lovers, and the commitment to monogamy, and one more thing that we will get to a bit later, so stay tuned!
*THIRDLY*, as far as political affiliations are concerned, i don't have any. I can equally agree with some views on the left, and some views on the right, and then, i can become totally disgusted by both sides in the same day -- welcome to modern American politics folks, *PUKE*!
*FOURTHLY*, i don't have a problem with gay people. If you want to be gay, fine, good for you. All i ask is that you act appropriately in public, but i would ask the same of my hetero brethren. I can't tell you how many times i've had to witness a hetero-couple dry humping in public. GET A ROOM ALREADY! My only complaint about the gay community is this propensity to throw sexual orientation in everyone's face, or the need to broadcast it to the ends of the known universe. Stop acting like a child already!
*FIFTHLY*, i don't have any problem with polygamous relationships. What's the big deal anyway? Are you jealous? Yeah, that must be it! But i don't practice polygamy. Never have, and probably never will -- although i must admit i do envy Mr. Hefner greatly.
No horse and no race here...
So, why do i feel that "state sanctioned marriage" should be limited to one man and one woman? Before i can answer that question, we must first contemplate the differences between a "civil privilege" and a "civil right".
Every day, many of us will drive an automobile for one reason or another, and most of us could not imagine even surviving without an automobile. But how many of us realize that operating a motor vehicle is *NOT* a right? In fact, in some circumstances, and no matter what negative consequences could arise from denying you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, say, loss of employment; loss of housing; hunger; or even death, as the final result -- the privilege of driving can be taken away from you at any time.
This may at first seem unfair, but only the naive mind would come to that conclusion without following the trail to it's logical end. There is a very important reason why driving is a "privilege" and not a "right", and it can be summed up succinctly as "public safety". If you cannot demonstrate the ability to operate a vehicle *AND* navigate the complex interface of traffic to an acceptable degree, then you will be denied the privilege of driving. You can cry and cry that it's not fair, but a logical society cannot sacrifice life and limb of the entire community, to a small minority who cannot meet the requirements.
(Of course in modern society, there are alternatives. One can take the bus, train, or car-pool and still maintain a level of mobility. Albeit, at a lesser degree of freedom.)
Now, you may be asking yourself: "How the hell does driving relate to marriage equality". Well first of all, we need to understand why marriage is sanctioned at the state level. Specifically: "Why did the states get involved in the interpersonal relationships of their citizens anyway"? I can answer that question easily enough by evoking the same hubris (sans the illogic!) that our "beloved" Justices evoked, in which i will posit that the state originally granted the privilege of "state sanctioned marriage" to empower the respectability of "monogamous relationships" among it's citizens due to the inherent existential nature of such relationships. And since it is only from hetero-sexual relationships that offspring can be produced, it's only natural to understand why homosexual relationships were not recognized as "existential". That's all that is going on here people. The recognition of hetero-marriage is nothing more than the recognition of the dire need to reproduce, lest we, we as in "all humans", yes, even the gay folks, become extinct. Because like it or not, the brutal reality is, the survival of homosexuals is directly dependent on the survival of heterosexuals, and *NEVER* the other way around!
But lets get back to the relationship between the privilege to drive, and the privilege to have your sexual relationship sanctioned by the state. I have offered evidence that, contrary to the naive interpretations of the constitution, your privileges can be stripped away, or even denied outright *IF* you do not meet the requirements. The "marriage equality" folks would have us believe that they are being denied a "right", but despite what they may believe, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. And like all privileges, there are prerequisites.
(However, i must honestly admit that this "revelation", specifically that marriage is a privilege and not a right, may seem dangerous. How can we create a just society when any right can be converted to a privilege at will?)
My answer is simple: first we ignore the knee-jerk reaction to be an ideologue, then, we utilize our good judgement by testing the validity of "the privilege", and deciding if the privilege is violating life or liberty, or is simply just "unfair".
(1) How does hetero-marriage deny homosexuals the right
of life or liberty?
It doesn't. Homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual relationships both publicly and privately, and homosexuals are (rightfully) protected from persecution and discrimination in employment, or any other life or liberty related endeavors. In fact, the only "denial" that hetero-marriage imposes on homosexuals, is the denial to act as a heterosexual! But the irony is, the denial is *SELF-IMPOSED*. The state cannot, and rightfully so, force sexual orientation upon any of us. Neither can another citizen! We, as citizens, can choose to engage in homo or hetero relationships, and as such, if *ANY* homosexual wants to exercise his/her privilege of marriage, they need *ONLY* to meet the same requirements as *ANY* hetero would be required.
(1) Find a partner of the opposite sex.
(2) Commit to a monogamous relationship.
There is no discrimination here. Even if someone has engaged in homosexual behavior in the past, they cannot be denied the privilege of marriage *IF* they meet the two enumerated requirements. Heck, this is not even "unfair". This is simply bending logic to reach emotional ends. This whole "marriage equality" business is nothing more than one group of citizens tattle-telling to the federal government nanny that "heteros don't play fair".
CONCLUSION:
My position, simply stated, is this: i accept that homosexuals have always existed, and will *ALWAYS* exist. I also recognize that they have the right to life and liberty, because no person should ever endure persecution, but what i am not willing to accept, is the normalization or celebration of homosexual behavior. For it is a behavior that serves no benefit for our species, just as masturbation serves no productive benefit for our species. What's next, are we to celebrate masturbation? (more on that below!) Neither am i willing to accept the redefinition of an institution (marriage), that was adopted by the states specifically to recognize how our existential plight is dependent on heterosexual reproduction, and that healthy, monogamous relationships, are vital to a child's development. Contrary to popular belief, redefining traditional marriage is not a perversion of behavior, no, it's a perversion of logic!
Hypothetical food for thought (A "masturbation marriage").
If we are to believe, as the pro-gay folks have argued, that marriage is more than the fundamentally idealized concept of a "social contract to celebrate procreation", and that mere love, or infatuation, is all that should define marriage, then we are opening up the definition of marriage to many strange possibilities. For instance, consider the possibility of two partners of any sex, or combination thereof, who never engage in sex relations at all, but who's "sexual relationship" is defined by mutual masturbation. Would this "arrangement" be sufficient enough to mandate that the state recognize and celebrate such a union? Something to think about...
PS: Is there any hope that the sheeple will break free of this gas lighting? We seem to go from one "engineered conflict" to the next, all the while, our enemies are sharpening their bayonets and foaming at the mouth for a chance to destroy us. Yes *ALL* of us. They don't care if we're gay or strait, or if we're republican or democrat, or if we're from the north or the south -- they just want to destroy us. How much longer can this animosity (on a nationwide scale) continue before the "kite-string pops"? We cannot squabble internally whilst fending off external attacks simultaneously. I won't be responding to any blatant flames or trolls. However I am willing to *debate* anyone, so long as they can maintain a relative level of respect. I consider myself to be open-minded, and i'm trying to understand the plight of those who are different than me. I carry no ill-will for any person. However, I am concerned that these emotional battles are destroying our nation. We *MUST* find middle ground, and stop listening to those in the media who sensationalize everything for profit.
