As the wise words of Anon have requested, this rant shall be about gay marriage. And I'll be good Guy Kyle and tell you this now: there probably won't be anything here that hasn't already been used in an argument before. And yes, this title was totally stolen from
Daniel Tosh.
"So what is your stance on such debauchery, Kyle?" You will ask from your shallow, Republican face-hole. Personally, I think they should be given equal rights.
"Are you
sure, Kyle?" You'll tempt like devil-spaw. See below image for just how sure I am.
|
Just how sure I am. |
Message across? Good. Now let's start with actual supporting evidence.
The Constitution.
This is mostly thrown towards American, my home land. I'm not quite sure about other countries (except for Australia, which allows it. Woo Aussies!), so best not to even go there.
Anyway, the central document of our country says some pretty cool stuff (even thought there are
plenty of typos) that lets us -- as legal citizens of the country -- do some pretty cool stuff. Some examples are:
- Not to be killed
- To express your opinion
- To practice your religion
- To pursue happiness, unless you can't be taxed for it
- And a bunch of other things
Now, I've actually found something interesting on that page I linked. I'll quote it here so you don't have to look for it:
Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.
Quite a mouthful, correct? Not that your moth can fit a lot; as specified before, it's quite shallow and Republican.
"Ha!" You shout at your monitor, thinking you have foiled me once more. "It says in there that the community can regulate marriage!" Congratulations, you're correct!
And congratulations, you don't understand what a community is! It is not, and I can't stress this enough, it is
not the government or judicial system. You see how big and bold and italic and underlined that word is? Let is burn itself into your mind for a moment. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Took you long enough. Thoroughly implanted now? Good.
"But just what is a community then, Kyle?" You'll ask me, finally realizing the futility of arguing with me through the internet and my own post. Well, it could be as little as only two persons, as said in that paragraph. Of course, it could also be a neighborhood, or a church or something. "But wait!" Your morale has risen. "Jesus will save us!" And again, you get another point. Damn, you're on a roll today.
A church, no matter how large or small (see those dirty Catholics),
does have the right to regulate who marries who within their boundaries. Fair enough, the independent beliefs decide who they wed in a spiritual sense. That all makes good sense. However, religion does not rule law. Or at least not anymore. Thus, though separate belief systems may prohibit homosexual unions, there can be no justifiable reason to discriminate the right to marriage (an extension of "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness") on legal grounds. And yes, religious nut-jobs, a judge can marry you. To another person, that is. Though don't let that stop you from marrying a judge.
Family Matters
Here's another big one: how homosexuality would re-define what a family is. As always, I'll be trusting dictionary.com for all of my definition-y needs:
noun
1.
a.
a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not:the traditional family.
b.
a social unit consisting of one or more adults together withthe children they care for: a single-parent family.
2.
the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want alarge family.
3.
the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family onvacation next week.
4.
any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents,children, uncles, aunts, and cousins: to marry into a socially prominent family.
5.
all those persons considered as descendants of a commonprogenitor.
Check out that first one there. Mm. Sure doesn't seem to include anything about heterosexual couples only. But that's not even the tip of the ice berg. Oh no, some people have gone so far to say that "children do better in a heterosexual parent household," to which I just have to
drop the science on and prove everyone wrong. That's just what I do.
Another argument on this matter is as thus "Then why can't I marry my dog? I love her a lot, so why can't I?" Not kidding, a friend of mine said that. I pray to Cthulu he was only kidding. But my response is -- and this is earth-shockingly devastating, so I suggest sitting down if you aren't already -- dogs don't have legal standing! That's right, they can't agree to any form of social contract, which marriage is! Mind blowing, right? this also applies to any non-sentient beings and objects.
Finally, people claim that legalization of gay marriage would lead to group marriages, which doesn't really make much sense, and actually commits the
slippery slope fallacy.
God said so!
No. No he didn't. In fact, if we were to take a literal interpretation of the Bible (which a lot of people seem to do for some reason), we'll get the
several verses about homosexuals, a good bit of which seem to actually condone such relationships an encourage them.
And the ones that do talk negatively about the subject, are ever only about gay
sex. Big difference between marriage and sex. Pretty sure about that. HIV positive about it.
And the point about how "God made Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve" is possibly one of the most ridiculous and idiotic premises I've ever heard. I mean,
really? You think the creator of everything ever
doesn't know how basic biology works? Seriously? At this point, it's pretty safe to call you a dumbass for saying that. How the hell else were they supposed to reproduce? It's basic fucking math, for Christ's sake! Get that shit right!
Sorry, got a little heated there. Anyway, this was for you Anon. Hope you enjoyed.