GAY MARRIAGE IS A DISTRACTION

boblonsberry.com ^ | 03/19/13 | Bob Lonsberry

[Vaduz]

Hillary Clinton came out yesterday as a supporter of gay marriage.

Didn’t Bill Clinton say that Hillary went down on more women than he did?.

[phockthis]

beware of the SMALL ARMS TREATY

[supercat]

If you round up, gay people are 2 percent of the population. Gay marriage is rubbed in the public’s face, like every other part of the gay agenda, but the real practical impact of gay marriage is zilch.

The fundamental issue with regard to "gay marriage" is not whether a person should be allowed to say he's "married" to whomever or whatever he wants, but whether such an individual can use the power of the state to compel every person, business, or institution that recognizes any marriage to recognize his "marriage".

The fundamental argument to be made against gay marriage is that it is fundamentally not about what gay people do in the privacy of their own home, but rather the extent to which gay people can force others to acknowledge their union. If the issue were really about things like tax status, inheritance, etc. then civil unions should be just fine; it's unclear that the state shouldn't recognize unions of couples who are ineligible to marry. Indeed, I would posit civil unions should be available for people like siblings who could not marry without committing incest, but who may have good reasons for forming joint households (e.g. if two siblings are widowed, both have kids, and circumstances are such that it would make sense for them to establish a common household, a civil union would seem a logical way to clearly establish property interests, rights of survivorship, guardianship, etc.)

Historically, the concept that a woman should form a nominally-exclusive lifetime mating relationship with one man is probably the closest thing to a universal behavior. Different societies have varied and do vary considerably in the means by which a pairing is established, the means by which it might be revoked, the extent to which an established pairing compels a man to mate exclusively with one woman, the extent to which adultery is tolerated or punished, etc. but almost every society that exists or has ever existed, has grown to non-trivial size, and has lasted for more than a couple generations, has recognized some form of pairing that comprises exactly one male and at least one female. Mathematically, a "gay marriage" cannot have exactly one male. As such, it represents a relationship which is very different from the universal behavior which has been observed from time immemorial.

[supercat]

Namely, bisexual marriage. After all, who are we to say that a man who loves a man who also loves woman should not allowed to marry.

Presently there is nothing illegal about a gay man getting married if he or she can find a woman (gay or straight) who wants to marry him. There is likewise nothing illegal about a gay woman getting married to a man who wants to marry her. I'm not sure what bisexuality would add to the mix unless one allows multiple marriage. In that scenario, a man who married two bisexual women would represent a relationship that was less of an aberration than a relationship which involved two men and zero women, or two women and zero men.