Friday, March 9, 2007

Should the Government Sanction Homosexual Marriages?

No, the government should not sanction homosexual marriages.

That answer would upset many people.

But those who object to that answer would probably feel better if the phrase was appended with, "...and neither should the government sanction any marriages."

There, all better. Homosexual marriages would still be unrecognized, but with universal un-recognition, it's now palatable. It makes you wonder whether the demands for gay marriage are more related to A) A desire to be married, or B) Envy of heterosexuals.

Regardless, why should any association between two (or more) people be the business of the government? If the minister (or priest or rabbi or Fred's Marriages Inc.) make the relationship "official", then what interest could the government have...besides the IRS?

Many heterosexuals find the thought of homosexual sex disgusting. But then, there are undoubtedly many homosexuals who find heterosexual sex disgusting. And there are many (probably most, actually) homosexuals and heterosexuals who find dead-animal necrophilia disgusting. But as long as no one is compelled to participate in acts that they don't like, then why should anyone care about what others do? And most of all, why should the government care? Why should they be in the marriage business?

Or was that already answered?

3 comments:

Lexcen said...

Governments pass laws because they can; because laws allow governments to justify their (government's)existence; because laws give governments control over people and what's the point of being a government if you can't control people?

21 said...

I think there are motivations besides controlling others. Just ask President Clinton the next time he rakes in $$$ for speaking before a fawning audience.

Anonymous said...

The question is incorrect and a construction of those who are trying to socially engineer change.

Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The better question is: Is the current and mellenia-old definition of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman incorrect or obsolete?

Marriage has government sanction to aid in the advancing of civilization to the next generation. You should support either abolition or change of marriage definition *only* if you want to see the end of civilization in a generation or two.

Any takers?