'We are a family. Even in this fucked-up day and age that means something.'
I'm going to go off in a completely different direction from the 'Why must people be?' post down below and talk about why gay people (who, unlike straight people, actually do have to worry about discrimination other than by random jackasses off the street) are not the biggest threat facing traditional marriage. This should be so obvious that it needn't be stated, but I was listening to Rush Limbaugh because I hate myself and realised something interesting.
The biggest threat to traditional marriage is, by definition, DIVORCE. Of which Limbaugh has had three.
Now, I'm not a conservative, a Catholic, or a conservative Catholic, so I see the need for divorce proceedings in some circumstances. Remember, my mother has been divorced, and as you know I am not flexible about perceived slights to my mother*. But sometimes I wonder why it doesn't constitute a breach of contract (i.e. the marriage vow) and an actionable offence. Then I remember that divorce is the action, the breach of contract being whatever the grounds for divorce is. This leads into a whole new problem, namely people failing to honour their own self-imposed legal and/or religious responsiblities on a scale that many self-described 'far left wing' sociologists describe as the crisis of our time. I think we can all agree that half of all marriages ending in divorce is not a healthy figure.
I've got to go with Al Franken on this one: sometimes these things should be capped. For example (although maybe not this precisely), Limbaugh has had three marriages and should not be allowed a fourth. On the other hand, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that we would do a better service to society by taking the laissez-faire approach and letting any woman thick enough to marry Rush Limbaugh remove herself from the dating pool.
In conclusion, gay marriage is not a threat to straight marriage, people should think before making important life decisions, and 'partying down' does not constitute a 'shared value.'
* My father is a different story: not because he never married my mother, but because he abandoned a woman who was pregnant with his son. Thanks a LOT, 'Jim.'
The biggest threat to traditional marriage is, by definition, DIVORCE. Of which Limbaugh has had three.
Now, I'm not a conservative, a Catholic, or a conservative Catholic, so I see the need for divorce proceedings in some circumstances. Remember, my mother has been divorced, and as you know I am not flexible about perceived slights to my mother*. But sometimes I wonder why it doesn't constitute a breach of contract (i.e. the marriage vow) and an actionable offence. Then I remember that divorce is the action, the breach of contract being whatever the grounds for divorce is. This leads into a whole new problem, namely people failing to honour their own self-imposed legal and/or religious responsiblities on a scale that many self-described 'far left wing' sociologists describe as the crisis of our time. I think we can all agree that half of all marriages ending in divorce is not a healthy figure.
I've got to go with Al Franken on this one: sometimes these things should be capped. For example (although maybe not this precisely), Limbaugh has had three marriages and should not be allowed a fourth. On the other hand, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that we would do a better service to society by taking the laissez-faire approach and letting any woman thick enough to marry Rush Limbaugh remove herself from the dating pool.
In conclusion, gay marriage is not a threat to straight marriage, people should think before making important life decisions, and 'partying down' does not constitute a 'shared value.'
* My father is a different story: not because he never married my mother, but because he abandoned a woman who was pregnant with his son. Thanks a LOT, 'Jim.'