Thursday, December 11, 2008

Trying to solve the "gay marriage" dilemma

Chuck Norris says that Prop 8 wasn't intended to deprive anyone of their rights, but reinforce the belief that marriage should be between and man and a woman. It just so happens to deprive a group of their rights in the process. "Whoops. Our bad." There are other methods that we could have chosen, but we wanted to go with the one that creates more second class citizens. It's kind of like claiming that slavery was merely a way to save the Africans' savage souls: We could have just used missionaries or rational debate, but we chose the method that destroyed the pride and mindset of an entire race of people. And of course...free labor!

Anyway, I'm all about just getting past this whole fucking issue, because gay people marrying each other doesn't threaten anything I do or imagine doing. No one should be throwing up these tremendous roadblocks to stop happiness, because that's what's being done. You're assaulting happiness, which is something I joke about people doing, but I never thought I see actually happen. You're trying to prevent someone from being happy or willingly shackle on the ball-and-chain, depending on how you view marriage. That's what it all boils down to.

But like i said, I'm all about moving past this, so I'd like to just ask two questions; one to people who are against gay marriage and one to gay people, because the second it stops being a semantics argument, the easier it is to fix and get everyone to shut the fuck up about it. I'm tired of talking about gay marriage. I want to talk about shit that matters, not wondering what my two male neighbors are doing in the bedrooms. And in truth, if you're that worried about what two men are doing in their own bedroom, it says more about you than it does about them. They could just be playing XBox, but your deep interest might just mean that you're gay. But I digress.

The first question is to all the gay people in America. If you know any, ask them this question and get back to me. I'm so serious about this.

"Does it have to be called 'marriage?' As long as you get all the rights of marriage, can it just be called something else?"

The second question is to all people against gay marriage:

"If it wasn't called 'marriage,' but it provided all of the rights of marriage, would you shut the fuck up?"

Because to me, that seems to be the entire argument right there, and what a stupid argument it is. People for claim to want to get married and not completely destroy the underpinnings of society. People against claim to want to simply define what marriage is. If gay people are willing to go along with the first question, then logically speaking, everything should be cool, right? Idiots get to keep their definition of marriage and gay people get to experience the soul-crushing death march to the grave known as (word that we will formally replace "marriage" with in the future).

Embracing the term "civil union" should take care of all of this mess. I mean, religion has claimed marriage as God's creation even though marriage predates all of the modern religions. So let them have it, gay people. Let them have marriage. Run with "civil union." They shouldn't have any reason to stop you on that one.

No comments: