So there has been a lot and I mean a lot of discussion on gay marriage. When it comes to matters of regulation and
legislation I use a very simple policy. Does it pass the “smell test”?
Part 1 Does the action in question have a negative impact on a third party?
No. Two people you or I have never met, living some place we will probably never visit, getting married
doesn’t impact our lives. We are not effected physically, financially or emotionally. Its not like they are walking down the street shooting people. Basic, I know but you get the point.
Part 2 Does the action have a negative impact on the individuals involved?
Hell! It’s marriage what do you think? It, however, is not like trying to commit suicide.
Suicide is faster…
You see my gentle reader It’s not the idea of gay marriage I question. It’s the concept of marriage period, gay or otherwise. I know, you think I’m being cynical but follow along. I have 800 words to do this in so watch your heads and keep you hands and feet inside the ride at all times.
Argument 1. Providing the children a stable environment?
When has a marriage guaranteed a healthy environment to raise kids? We all know someone that had married parents and it was a horrible place to grow up. We have known parents that stayed married for the sake of the children but created such a poisonous environment they would’ve been better off getting divorced instead of raising
kids in an atmosphere of tension and hate. What creates a stable environment is two adults that love each other and no piece of paper is going to manufacture that, ever.
Argument 2. Health insurance?
If your marriage is based on the idea one party or the other is going to benefit from a health plan then you better ask why that other person is marrying you. Is it you or your low “co-pay”.
Not to be rude but a marriage should be between equals. Don’t get me wrong if you want to provide that to someone swell, but again if you married someone so you could provide them care so they can stay home and cook and clean for you, did you marry a partner for life our just acquire a live in maid or butler with sexual benefits?
Argument 3 You should get married so that you have a retirement plan.
You can set up trust funds. You can name beneficiaries on life insurance policies etc. Sure someone could dispute it but that happens every day now any way. Gay, straight, married, living together if someone wants to cry “foul” they can. It’s their legal right. Welcome to the real world it happens all the time.
I have noticed that a key to avoiding a lot of this hooey is either not be worth anything or give all your crap away before you croak. Won’t solve all the instances true but it will reduce them.
Argument 4. What about making health care decisions for your loved one if they are unable?
Living wills, powers of attorney, a lot of this stuff can be dealt with some simple planning. Even married people have had their choices contested. Any body rember Terri Schiavo?? So to say a marriage gives you some sort of immunity to people meddling in your affairs is “bunk”. The courts are littered with law suits by third parties interfering in what are traditionally called “family matters”.
Argument 5 It’s immoral to have gays marry or to have people live in sin.
Worst argument of them all. Social morality is a fickle thing. Its changes about as often as women’s fashions.
Some biggies:
Slavery was considered morally acceptable.
Some people would argue that interracial relationships are abhorrent in the face of God even today.
Thousands if not millions of people found it morally acceptable to roast 6 million fellow human beings in ovens like turkeys on Thanks Giving not so long ago.
Morality is not now, nor has it ever been an absolute in human history. It not only changes with time but varies from culture to culture. Morality, at best, is defined by the individual and that’s a weak hook to hang your hat on.
The core of all these arguments basically comes down to two people looking for approval from a third party to justify, approve of, accept or somehow bestow some benefit on their “union”. Call me a “romantic” but relationships that will last till one or both of you dies doesn’t need the approval of others. It is in fact, your relationship. The only thing that
matters is that you two deeply care about each other.
Waaaayyyyy over simplified but in at 800 words. Damn what a ride!
;-)
Mader
legislation I use a very simple policy. Does it pass the “smell test”?
Part 1 Does the action in question have a negative impact on a third party?
No. Two people you or I have never met, living some place we will probably never visit, getting married
doesn’t impact our lives. We are not effected physically, financially or emotionally. Its not like they are walking down the street shooting people. Basic, I know but you get the point.
Part 2 Does the action have a negative impact on the individuals involved?
Hell! It’s marriage what do you think? It, however, is not like trying to commit suicide.
Suicide is faster…
You see my gentle reader It’s not the idea of gay marriage I question. It’s the concept of marriage period, gay or otherwise. I know, you think I’m being cynical but follow along. I have 800 words to do this in so watch your heads and keep you hands and feet inside the ride at all times.
Argument 1. Providing the children a stable environment?
When has a marriage guaranteed a healthy environment to raise kids? We all know someone that had married parents and it was a horrible place to grow up. We have known parents that stayed married for the sake of the children but created such a poisonous environment they would’ve been better off getting divorced instead of raising
kids in an atmosphere of tension and hate. What creates a stable environment is two adults that love each other and no piece of paper is going to manufacture that, ever.
Argument 2. Health insurance?
If your marriage is based on the idea one party or the other is going to benefit from a health plan then you better ask why that other person is marrying you. Is it you or your low “co-pay”.
Not to be rude but a marriage should be between equals. Don’t get me wrong if you want to provide that to someone swell, but again if you married someone so you could provide them care so they can stay home and cook and clean for you, did you marry a partner for life our just acquire a live in maid or butler with sexual benefits?
Argument 3 You should get married so that you have a retirement plan.
You can set up trust funds. You can name beneficiaries on life insurance policies etc. Sure someone could dispute it but that happens every day now any way. Gay, straight, married, living together if someone wants to cry “foul” they can. It’s their legal right. Welcome to the real world it happens all the time.
I have noticed that a key to avoiding a lot of this hooey is either not be worth anything or give all your crap away before you croak. Won’t solve all the instances true but it will reduce them.
Argument 4. What about making health care decisions for your loved one if they are unable?
Living wills, powers of attorney, a lot of this stuff can be dealt with some simple planning. Even married people have had their choices contested. Any body rember Terri Schiavo?? So to say a marriage gives you some sort of immunity to people meddling in your affairs is “bunk”. The courts are littered with law suits by third parties interfering in what are traditionally called “family matters”.
Argument 5 It’s immoral to have gays marry or to have people live in sin.
Worst argument of them all. Social morality is a fickle thing. Its changes about as often as women’s fashions.
Some biggies:
Slavery was considered morally acceptable.
Some people would argue that interracial relationships are abhorrent in the face of God even today.
Thousands if not millions of people found it morally acceptable to roast 6 million fellow human beings in ovens like turkeys on Thanks Giving not so long ago.
Morality is not now, nor has it ever been an absolute in human history. It not only changes with time but varies from culture to culture. Morality, at best, is defined by the individual and that’s a weak hook to hang your hat on.
The core of all these arguments basically comes down to two people looking for approval from a third party to justify, approve of, accept or somehow bestow some benefit on their “union”. Call me a “romantic” but relationships that will last till one or both of you dies doesn’t need the approval of others. It is in fact, your relationship. The only thing that
matters is that you two deeply care about each other.
Waaaayyyyy over simplified but in at 800 words. Damn what a ride!
;-)
Mader
RSS Feed
