Same-sex unions didn't kill marriage
An article by a normally moderate to conservative author in National Post recapping the last five years in Canada, taking adequate time delving into reality checks of what are possibly the "real" threats to "traditional" marriage. (I can put my quotes on "traditional" just like most anti-gay marriage articles put their quotes on "marriage.")
the ones put on the spot to come up with evidence on how this won't
harm opposite-sex marriage with our 'dangerous social experiment' whereas they can simply keep their fear as a deterrent to change of any kind, and will fight fiercely to keep that fear, I might add, for themselves as for their "concerned" constituents. If there is any other evidence needed other than what a state like Massachusetts or an entire country like Canada can show us, we need to well ask what extremes do they demand which would constitute viable evidence for them.
We're the ones from whom the evidence is required, as they conveniently disregard any evidence of how the lives of gays and lesbians are adversely affected by preventing them from officially registering and celebrating their committed unions in precisely the same way in which heterosexual people can register and celebrate theirs. It is not a 'special right' to be able to declare your love for your significant other in a legal and a public way. It's a given, completely taken for granted among heterosexuals. How can you say you're for
gay rights, and that you have gay friends, and not want them to have what you
have, that you apparently don't want them to be as happy, that you believe they don't deserve the same recognition as human beings? Their friend? Really?
Yet, they still try to show how gays are by nature more promiscuous, and so are not suited for marriage. I submit that if opposite-sex marriage were somehow abolished - that it was no longer legal to be married, while you would find a slight increase in promiscuity among many couples who used to be legally married couples, the new couples coming along who could have no formal wedding, no vows, no host of witnesses, no legal contract, there would be a vast number of casual, open relationships, and multiple partners of all scenarios. I'm not putting those relationships down at all. Some people both hetero and gay, choose to be monogamous, and some polyamorous. But I'm simply saying, don't use 'evidence' against a class of people which for a large part of their 'statistics' doesn't exist, and yet prevent the very thing which would remedy the matter.
Marriage means something, and it's only made stronger when everyone is allowed the choice. (end of Jarrell's commentary)( Read more...Collapse )