http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_marriage_1;_ylt=Ap252fePQBayzZzwYLxUl91h24cA
(it won't let me do the link thing)
Fred thompson made concession with conservatives about gay marriage. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, well I have any idea about how a lot of people feel about this, but I think the whole question is such a joke. It is really a disappointment that when it comes down to the fundamental ability to file a joint tax-return, some people can and some people can't. If marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony, then it should be a illegal in the first place for the government to really have any part of it, much less giving families tax breaks or benefits not sure what the specifics are, but this is what it seems like to me). On the other hand, if marriage is argued to be a civil union between two people, then to prohibit one group of people based on gender and sexual orientation is blatantly unconstitutional. This is how I see it, you either suck it up and give other people the same access to the benefits you get or you give up those benefits because it is just downright unfair that some people have them and that some people don't. Now, the argument that marriage as an instition will fall to the corrupt hands of paligamy(sp) and bestiality and all sorts of things that people want to get married to if you allow same sex marriages is complete and absolute irrational stupidity. Just make the law define marriage as a union between two consenting adult human beings. Oh well then you've got the palygamist in an upheaval. Well then make it should be between two consenting human adult parties. Don't get me wrong, I can feel and understand the personal attatchment to marriage as a religiously motivated ceremony, but the fact that people have to let it spill into the secular world, makes it no longer a pure ceremony to begin with.
3 comments:
I don't know why this immediately made me think of it, but I remember when the Arnold made his dumb quote about gay marriage. ("I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.")
To me, Fred Thompson is the same way. He can talk about gay marriage, but he doesn't totally understand it. Or want to. Especially since his marriage is so normal. How old is she, 19 and a half?
i think that the law should not be intertwined with the question of what marriage should be.. and who it should be between. I mean comon.. its rediculous, i think, to have all this tax break crap for some, and not others, and it a union, but they cant get benfits and blah blah blah... i agree it should be just be flat out.. a union between two consenting humans...there is no confusion, who cares about the sex of the people.. and its all good. so. thats what i think. :)
I can't wrap my mind around people not allowed to marry the one they fall in love with. I mean, what's the big deal? Just because a man wants to marry a man, doesn't mean that the guy next door will think it's okay to marry a chair. And the sad thing is...this argument has been going on for so long and America is not getting anywhere. We fight about gay marriage, abortion, health care and we use the same arguments and opinions, but we continue to be stuck in a circle! This topic of freedom of choice should NOT be a problem. We're a country based on freedom and we are so blatantly ignoring that in this situation. Please tell me, what kind of sense does that make??
Post a Comment