And bring hot lesbo trysts on Gilligan’s Island into it while doing so.
I’m not going to join the chorus opposing same sex marriage. First, I’m against restrictions on adults entering into voluntary contracts. Second, I see no reason why broadening the definition of marriage to same-sex couples devalues or diminishes mine. Finally, there’s the purely utilitarian Gilligan’s Island effect: if Skipper and Professor decide to wed in a tasteful lagoon-side ceremony, I’ve got Ginger and Mary Ann to myself at the wedding luau. And if it’s Mary Ann and Ginger hooking up, well…I’ll be in my bunk.
If there’s anything that gives me pause about SSM, it’s the thuggish tactics of some of its most vocal proponents. It’s hard to take a “human rights activist” seriously while he’s beating someone over the head with a “NOH8” placard for holding the same position Barack Obama held until 5 minutes ago.
So yeah, in a secular society maybe it’s time for opponents to recognize a rational basis for legal SSM. But it’s also time for supporters to recognize they are espousing a position that every society in the first 99.99% of human history would have considered nuts.
As I’ve said before, I don’t care one heck of a lot about this debate either way; in light of my own recent, umm, experience, if gays want marriage they can have it for all me, and rotsa ruck to ’em.
The truth is, all joking around aside, it’s no use arguing that the institution of marriage is going to be destroyed by them. That was done a long time ago, and not by them, but by us. And just as I wax momentarily serious here, so does Iowahawk there:
The solution? Maybe it’s time for government to get out of the whole marriage business altogether. Or at least to treat it as a standard civil contract between adults conferring certain privileges (wills, powers of attorney, co-ownership) and obligations (say hello to alimony and the marriage tax penalty, Bert and Ernie). Don’t want to call it “marriage”? Fine, call it a civil union, domestic partnership, blancmange, whatever, leave it open to any pair of consenting adults. Leave the holy sacrament business to churches, and if First Lutheran or Immaculate Conception or Temple Beth-El don’t want to bestow the title of “married” on a same sex couple, that ought to be their own business. You get married at a church, you get blancmanged at the county courthouse.
Now you’re talkin’ sense. The eagerness of some social cons to resort to government interference to promote their own standards for private behavior is, shall we say, telling. And judging from the lack of any real interest in getting married themselves on the part of every last one of the gay people I know (yes, there are a few–actually, more than a few), their own eagerness to poke a thumb in the eye of religious types is, too.