Friday, May 22, 2015

#VoteYes...for love

When all people could get married in North Carolina, it made everyone's marriage more meaningful.  I know I felt great in May when I married Jillian because I married for love, and I felt solidarity with the same sex couples who married.  Marriage is (or it should be) about love.  How can anyone be against love?

I hope Ireland votes yes to marriage equality.

5 comments:

  1. If marriage becomes no longer one man - one woman, is there any limit you'd want society (or you, personally) to place on what constitutes a marriage if there is love involved, however the participants define love?..

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree.I want to marry my brother. He loves me and I love him. Why should marriage be just between a man and woman? I know someone who wants to marry their mother. I can't wait until we progress as a society to make this legal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Commenter two. That's a dumb argument. It isn't logically related or logical in the least. I bet you support that Duggar kid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wait, Michael. In dismissing Anon #2's comment, aren't you applying the same prejudice you'd accuse traditional marriage advocates of having? If we're talking about altering traditional societal norms, then who are you (or me) to draw that line... if it makes two folks happy? The pro-gay marriage arguments come down to things like stopping discrimination, the argument that a gay marriage in no way harms my straight marriage, that so many straights get divorced that they are hypocrites to promote the "sanctity" of marriage, etc. Basically, that one's civil rights are being trampled simply because of their gender. Where am I off base on that?

    A mom and son want to marry. How is that a concern of yours or mine?..

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am not applying the same prejudice in the least. Incest is far different. There are legitimate genetic reasons not to allow that. Inbreeding causes genetic deficiencies. This doesn't even getting into the sexual abuse argument reasons for not allowing incest. I do find it funny that the right wing condemned the LGBT community so virulently, in particular the Duggars, and now Josh Duggar is a child molester. Now Mike Huckabee is trying to cover up for him.

    You can debate the origins of marriage as long as you want. It started out as a business transaction meant to keep property in the family. In the Middle Ages the idea of "courtly love" arose, and people 'married for love' more frequently later on. Trying to apply one set standard to marriage is problematic. Now it is about love (not completely but usually), but it wasn't always. Arguing there is some fixed concept of marriage and that it is some unshakable bedrock that must not be altered lest we fall into a quagmire of debauchery is bullshit. That's my objection to the second commenter.

    Anthropologists recognize two taboos that are almost universal: incest and cannibalism. Both of these are for obvious reasons. Allowing same sex marriage does not lead to either of these universal taboos. This type of line-drawing argument assumes too many other variables and dominos falling.

    ReplyDelete