Note (5/11/2009): you can now find my posts at: http://cogs.fernsehtek.com
Whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn’t sink mine. I have used this as the basis of my moral standard for most of my life. Letting two adults commit to a life together seems like a good thing, why would this not true when they are of the same sex? Because just that, they have sex? Stop picturing it then. Unless the debate is about the physical intimacy, and I don’t think it is unless neocons are that focused what two people do when the mood hits them, then this is simply a debate about commitment and responsibility, two very positive things in my view.
The argument then is about the sanctity of marriage? After witnessing sufficient divorce (not my own personally) I am convinced marriage is primarily a business arrangement. It certainly ends as one. Thinking back to my own wedding, the vows and oaths part, it seemed I was agreeing to essentially throw my lot in with this other person, commit to weathering any storm. We made this decision at the time as we seemed to be a good team together and felt like spending the rest of our lives in close proximity. She was my friend, my confidant, my critic (she seems most confident in this capacity of course), and a variety of other things having nothing to do with intimacy and as such I suppose her gender plays little role other than being pleasant to look at all these years (almost 16). If I break down the percentages then intimacy is a very small part of the agreement between us, the other bonds are far more regularly tested. Is that then the basis for marriage, to forge a bond between only a man and a woman, or really between two people? If we allow same sex marriage are we then to assume different sex couples will stop marrying? So sanctity, not at risk I think.
Kids you say, what about the kids? Do we marry to have kids? If that is part of the deal then all DINKs need to report to their lawyers and religious leaders for immediate divorce to find someone they will have kids with. Wait, it has to be a father and a mother because anything else is unacceptable? Well, the vast majority of us are going to hell then. I am the product of a full hat trick of divorces and other than the years of therapy turned out reasonably well in my own mind. Clearly having a mom, a dad, two step-moms, two step-dads, has been too much of a good thing. Maybe I needed just two moms? No way of knowing now but I have seen enough disastrous man+woman married/divorced parents to know there is no winning argument on this subject. Some people, some couples, make good parents, others should not have even started the process.
My thought is this, commitment, for how ever long, and reinforcing it with ceremony and vows, is better than some casual free for all where we take partners as we want them, kids run amok, and…wait, let me think about this some more. Please hold…
Meanwhile, I should think those opposed to gay marriage, some of whom are presumably also opposed to gays in general, would at least want marriage and its accompanying bureaucracy to track, manage, and other wise allow the gathering of evidence. I know, scary, but you want to play then you get to end up on mailing lists together.