Gay marriage, why everyone should calm down

Unlike other famous intellectuals, I’ve never before addressed the issue of gay marriage. That is because, like on the EU, my opinions are still evolving.
On the face of it, gay marriage is a very simple issue. Equality for all, no matter their orientation or preference. On the face of the matter, opposition to gay marriage can only be founded on prejudice, not reason or fact.

Many people of that persuasion tend to lean on the assumption that gay couples are less suited to raising children. Or that allowing marriage (in their opinion a sacred covenant) will taint heterosexual marriages.

I would sometimes agree on the first point if I was in a bad mood, although since we’re looking at 0.2% of American children, I’m also inclined to urge people to calm down. A far higher percentage of children will be affected by unstable households and other such things than they will by gay parents. But, however, I simply can’t allow the second point to fly. I don’t believe in god, in fact, most people don’t, so the idea that marriage is sacred is no just reason for stopping gay marriage.

Opponents also argue that marriage has always between a man and a woman, to which I say that marriage has changed fundamentally in the past, why can’t it change again? Then they usually tell me that it’s a non-negotiable aspect. Who says? Who determines what marriage should be? What gives you the right to enforce your vision of what marriage is on other people, even people who potentially could make it work better than you could?

At present gay couples use civil ceremonies, and I see no problem with this at all, I frankly don’t see why they are so set on getting the full-blown religious deal. Civil ceremonies are practically as good as a marriage, the only reason I could see for wanting a marriage instead, is that you might be religious. In which case, why do you want to get married by people who won’t accept an intrinsic part of your person?

There should certainly be no government ban on religious institutions performing marriages, but I don’t think any church should be forced to. Churches that want to, can, and those that don’t should not be forced. That seems obvious to me.

I’m also getting a bit tired of liberal middle class hipsters who only join in the debate because its fashionable. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. That fashion is dangerous. A fashion of simply letting people do whatever they want no matter the consequences. I have no problem with gay marriage, but there are other, far worse consequences of such a fashion that I won’t go into here.

I certainly have no time for those who become violent in this, and turn to hatred of right-wingers. When dealing with opponents to gay – marriage, what we’re mainly looking at are tired old farts who think the world is changing too fast. And they’re right.

You must know that in the end, the left will win this debate. Society simply no longer has the patience for pet-prejudices, and so we certainly needn’t feel insecure enough to resort to play ground tactics.


Further reading:




2 thoughts on “Gay marriage, why everyone should calm down

  1. gypsysattva July 2, 2013 / 7:11 pm

    Nice post. I tend to agree with you, and especially liked “When dealing with opponents to gay – marriage, what we’re mainly looking at are tired old farts who think the world is changing too fast. And they’re right.”

    But you failed to mention a huge reasons that civil ceremonies are less-than-equal: Spousal Benefits (which is what the DOMA case was about). In addition to being able to make their partners U.S. citizens,, gay and lesbian Americans who are legally married according to the rules of the states now get to collect army pay should their husband or wife die in combat, for example.

    Domestic partners can file joint tax returns and contract to all types of complicated arrangements (as could three partners, in theory), but they don’t automatically inherit everything their life partner had.

    As to your point about the children, those kids from that high percentage of unstable homes would not doubt benefit from having a financially and emotionally stable family environment comprised of two dads or two moms, wouldn’t you agree? That is: spouses have less trouble adopting than do domestic partners; it’d behoove us to remove unnecessary obstacles in the way of obviously suitable couples.

    • MarxistMax July 2, 2013 / 8:30 pm

      Well thanks you for your contribution. I totally agree of course, the errors were made from ignorance.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s