Ghost of a flea

You know, I consider myself a pretty strong libertarian. Some would consider my position pretty extreme in some regards.

That said, I cannot support gay "marriage". Civil unions, no problem - I recognize that solutions must be found for the sharing of property, visitation issues, etc. But marriage is something more fundamental to human society than a simple acknowledgement that two people who love each other, promise to commit to a monogamous relationship. Indeed, marriage isn't even about sex, per se.

Marriage is not a right, nor is it predicated upon sexual orientation. I have too many gay friends with children from heterosexual marriages to buy that idea. Gays can marry today - just as they have always been able to marry. They may not marry someone of the same gender, just as I cannot marry someone of a close family relationship, or marry two men at the same time.

You see, for the life of me, I have yet to hear an argument for the legitimization of same-gender marriages that does not equally apply to bigamy or consentual incest - or even life long partnerships of celibate family members! The fact that there are a wide variety of pair bonding relationships does not mean that the unique and specific institution we call marriage need be altered to accomodate them.

The only difference between homosexual relationships and incestuous ones is successful political activism has led to a "normalization" of one activity. Had there been as strong a movement to legitimize incest, we could be arguing today about allowing father and daughter to marry.

Indeed, poligamy has a stronger argument to support it's legitimization - that is based both in religion, history and anthropology.

Try this experiment some day - ask someone who supports the legitimization of same sex marriage if they would support a 45 year old man marrying a 16 year old boy. Heterosexual supporters of gay marriage have a very difficult time going there, no matter how much they protest their support of the right to do so.

As I have said, I find this entire debate entirely tedious. I have yet to hear a single critique of gay marriage that does not rely on two predicates: first, that the state should be legitimizing this or that sacrament by preference to that of some other; second, that the state should be in the business of enforcing the views of some purportedly religious types at the expense of people with whom they disagree. I have no interest in convincing anyone that gay sex is dandy or gay marriage is the sine qua non of human social relationships. I do have an interest in paying taxes that support religious views I do not share and deciding whether or not to support political parties that would continue to create rules that benefit some religious views at the expense of others. Civil unions for everybody. Keep your marriages in your own churches, thank you.

As for the final point raised... I would think twice about a marriage between a 45 year man and a 16 year old girl. But it is the difference in age rather than the question of gender that would be at issue. So, respectfully, what's your point?

It occurs to me I should make myself more clear than I already have.

If you do not like gay people. I don't care. If you do not like gay sex. I don't care. If you think some natural law/Scriptural injunction/etc./etc. is being violated I don't care. If you disapprove of gay marriage. I don't care. If you think the courts are making up rights. I don't care. If you think gay marriages should never occur within the sanctity of whatever communion to which you belong. I don't care. Thankfully, many people have fought and died for us all to have the right to disagree on these matters but frankly, I would be astonished to hear a single new note in the chorus of disapproval.

Hence I am bored of this topic.

If you think your disapproval means you have the right to deny other people the same protections under the law that have been your privilege I think you are in the wrong. But feel free to continue making your case at your own expense elsewhere.

"ask someone who supports the legitimization of same sex marriage if they would support a 45 year old man marrying a 16 year old boy"

I certainly would not. Nor would I support a 45 year old man marrying a 16 year old girl (or vice versa). But what does this have to do with same-sex marriage? Pedophila is a separate matter, one that affects both gay and straight communities.