CRS
Chandler, Arizona, United States

There's an old saying. If you don't want someone to join a crowd, you ask them, "If everyone were jumping off of a cliff, would you?" Well, I have. So my answer would be "Yes". True story.
Profile continued . . .

ARCHIVES!
Homosexual Marriage Really Isn't Anything Like Man-on-Animal Marriage

Friday, December 29, 2006

this entry brought to you by the raconteurs, "steady as she goes"


I was talking to someone a few weeks ago-- well, debating, actually-- about Republicans Vs. Democrats, and homosexual marriage came up. "I don't support homosexual marriage because I think it's just a short slide from there to allowing polygamist marragies and marriages between man and an animal," he said, recycling the words of lunatic Senator Rick Santorum. I'd heard this rhetoric before amongst insane memers of the religious right, but I'd never heard it from an actual person who had no political motication to do so.

Do people actually believe this? Is this an honest-to-god opinion people can honestly have? I was dumbfounded, and more than a little frustrated. When someone says something so patently nonsensical, it's hard to take them seriously. You want to say, you must be joking, right?

I mentioned that polygamy is outlawed because it tends to go hand in hand with underage marriage. He mentioned that child molestors tend to be homosexual-- which is patently untrue, and a vile bit of propaganda, but according to the right-wing rulebook, this is the same line of thinking. Besides, I shouldn't have countered that way because his statement was a non-argument and has no lasis in logic. Legally, there is no reason to grant polygamists the same rights as ordinary marriages. It would leave ordinary marriages at a severe disadvantage for tax purposes alone. And as for a man marrying an animal, for one thing, who gives a shit if some lunatic wants to marry a horse? With that said, comparing that with homosexual marriage, for what reason would a man married to his horse need legal equality to a straight marriage? When a man and a horse divorce, there are no kids, no house, and no assets that need to be divided.

However, as has been elaborated in detail here, when two people of the same sex live together in the same way a straight couple would, in the case of death or divorce, there are all sorts of horrible legal problems that come up simply because they were homosexual and the law didn't recognize their marraige. I've gone into great detail how this isn't fair previously, so, at the risk of repeating myself, I won't get into depth here. My point today, however, is that comparing homosexual sex with polygamy or man/animal marriage is ridiculously off base, and it is obviously so. Yet this is, apparently, something the religious right is legitimately afraid of. I wonder, did they make the same idiotic argument 50 years ago, when the first interracial couplers were being denied marriage?
-----



with love from CRS @ 11:44 PM 

0 Comments:

Post a Comment