9.18.2004
A Word Concerning Homosexual Marriage
My best friend in the world came out of the closet, oh so many years ago. It is a long story (aren't they all?). For several years, he pounded the drumbeat which resounds today. He and I reached an impasse. It was painful, but it mirrors the larger, societal impasse now.
He argued forcefully and reasonably in favor of homosexual union. Try as I did, I could not meet reason. But faith, scripture, and thousands of years of reality were on my side where mere words failed me.
In the United States, it is possible to accomplish every substantive thing gay persons cry for. Everything. Joint property, power over another person, and estate planning.
Granted, you cannot make an unmarried person or non-offspring the insurance beneficiary of your policy. If you are gay and 'coupled' with another of like sex, you cannot qualify for a marital deduction. That is too bad, egotistically speaking. And that is what it is, the ego speaking.
Marriage is definitional. It is too profound to go changing at a whim -- just because individuals who are heirs to a free and liberal society wish it were so. Do it, and the ancient stability erodes. Do it, and the system is exposed to a never-ending cavalcade of fraud and deceipt. Do it, and I can claim Person B is my life-long partner (for a little 'dough' on the side). Do it, and Person C will eventually cry foul when his second partner is not accorded the same status as his first. Do it, and Person D will become righteously indignated when his underage paramour cannot stand up for his or her god-given rights as a human being. My imagination begins to fail me at this point, but not that of a thousand others.
What I am saying is that some things in this life need to remain resolved. If you tend to disagree with the mainstream, you need to find ways to accomplish what you want within the existing legal framework. You need to live and let live. Not everything can go every one's way. When that happens, then by definition, we have a state of anarchy.
That said (as in the first paragraph), I know there are folks who ably disagree.
My best friend in the world came out of the closet, oh so many years ago. It is a long story (aren't they all?). For several years, he pounded the drumbeat which resounds today. He and I reached an impasse. It was painful, but it mirrors the larger, societal impasse now.
He argued forcefully and reasonably in favor of homosexual union. Try as I did, I could not meet reason. But faith, scripture, and thousands of years of reality were on my side where mere words failed me.
In the United States, it is possible to accomplish every substantive thing gay persons cry for. Everything. Joint property, power over another person, and estate planning.
Granted, you cannot make an unmarried person or non-offspring the insurance beneficiary of your policy. If you are gay and 'coupled' with another of like sex, you cannot qualify for a marital deduction. That is too bad, egotistically speaking. And that is what it is, the ego speaking.
Marriage is definitional. It is too profound to go changing at a whim -- just because individuals who are heirs to a free and liberal society wish it were so. Do it, and the ancient stability erodes. Do it, and the system is exposed to a never-ending cavalcade of fraud and deceipt. Do it, and I can claim Person B is my life-long partner (for a little 'dough' on the side). Do it, and Person C will eventually cry foul when his second partner is not accorded the same status as his first. Do it, and Person D will become righteously indignated when his underage paramour cannot stand up for his or her god-given rights as a human being. My imagination begins to fail me at this point, but not that of a thousand others.
What I am saying is that some things in this life need to remain resolved. If you tend to disagree with the mainstream, you need to find ways to accomplish what you want within the existing legal framework. You need to live and let live. Not everything can go every one's way. When that happens, then by definition, we have a state of anarchy.
That said (as in the first paragraph), I know there are folks who ably disagree.
// posted by HunterByrd @ 5:36 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Sure, let our society recognize it. But if you do, don't stop there. What then is wrong with having a sheep for a spouse or a monkey? History supports that people have had such "relations" (even Bill Clinton would admit such acts as "relations" per his definition), as evidenced by syphillis and aids.
-Damn Straight
Post a Comment
-Damn Straight
# posted by 
: 7:03 AM
: 7:03 AM << Home
