In response to an opinion piece done in the local newspaper today, in addition to a common meme I see online a lot, I say "Welcome to post-19th century America!" Marriage is no longer a state-sanctioned bond used to assure that people successfully breed annoying demonspawn children. If it was, we would still be annulling marriages for people who do not have children within a set amount of time, and would prevent the elderly or impotent from marrying. Hell, we probably wouldn't even let people marry unless they specifically stated that they wanted to have children (which some married couples do not). This is a very nice way of trying to justify why marriage is arbitrarily defined as a bond between a man and woman. When marriage served as a sex contract, you probably would have had a point. But, present day, marriage is not a child quota. It is not a man buying property rights to a vagina. It is more or less a partnership contract. One that confers certain legal benefits that we should not be allowed to arbitrarily deny to people just because they do not have different sets of genitals. Your argument from tradition, completely ignoring the state of marriage today, and from the fact that using a tradition of exclusion to support continued exclusion, fails. And your attempts to pretend that people aren't homophobic by claiming that there is no hatred in adamantly clinging to such a tradition are mildly humorous, and would be outright hilarious if your willingness to turn a blind eye to the motivations behind these arguments wasn't so disgusting.
Just because you scoff at the idea that gay marriage is a civil rights issue does not mean that it isn't one. End rant.
October 2017 Horror Watching, Part 2
1 hour ago