Gay Marriage: The Sickness

Where I Stand

First of all, let me explain where I stand on a few things and you'll probably guess where this post is going. You'll definitely understand my attitude and rational.

I don't like homosexuality. More specifically, I don't like male homosexuality. The idea of two hairy men coming together to "smash" each other disgusts me. And, that's why I don't do it. There are a lot of things I can't, don't, and won't do - crack, heroin, fellatio, door-to-door sales, necrophilia, etc etc etc. At the same time, there are a lot of things I do that others won't do - eat meat, watch girl-on-girl pornography, cunnilingus, smoke marijuana, etc etc etc.

The point is that we all do things that others may or may not do. But, what does it matter? As long as what I am doing doesn't hurt you and what you're doing doesn't hurt me, why should either one of try to prevent or prohibit the other from doing it. Homosexuality doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect anyone but the people who engage in it. So, I don't see myself supporting any measure that treats homosexuals as second-class citizens.

We are all human beings first. Any categorization after that is arbitrary as it pertains to society as a whole.

Arguments Against "Gay Marriage"

I recognize there are two arguments against gay marriage. These are not separate arguments but different arguments in their intent to shape gay marriage. The first stems from outright hate of homosexuality altogether. This argument is against anything that would promote or even accept the concept of homosexuality. The second fights over the definition of the word itself: "Marriage is the union between man and woman." Supposedly, they don't mind civil unions but they don't want to "share" their definition of marriage. Neither argument is of any real relevance as both are based on ignorance and stupidity.

America's HIV: Blending of Church and State

The very reason there is a separation of church and state is because our forefathers were sick and tired of the twisted ways people, specifically the royalty of England, use religion to limit and/or pervert an ever changing and growing society. Examples of this perversion include justifications for slavery, rape, incest, murder, torture and more. President mis-elect George W. Bush said that God told him to do certain things. Those things lead up to well over 4000 American military troops dying along with the senseless slaughter of near 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan people. Bush is a prime example of someone who is religiously perverse and wielding the power of the presidency of the United States.

It's this same limitation and perversion of religion coupled with an unconstitutional blending of church and state that gives life to the "sickness" this nations suffers. It's like the AIDS virus, corrupting and distorting the cells one by one until eventually the body turns on itself in a vicious civil war shutting down organ by organ until the entire body falls. One ramification of this nation's "sickness" is the persecution of gays through the denial of marriage. While I will not assume our forefathers anticipated this specific issue, they did anticipate these types of issues. By separating church and state, they give the future the freedom from this "sickness" to decide their respective present.

Marriage vs Civil Union: The Solution

The United States government should recognize civil unions in general and disassociate itself with any religious concept of marriage altogether. That is, all marriages, heterosexual and homosexual, are civil unions and will be respected as such. Civil union should be, and are, considered legal agreements between two people to share a life together. Marriage, as it is defined by any church, will not have any respect with the US government.

Allow me to introduce a possibly new concept. All civil unions should be agreements that are decided upon before the marriage takes place. In other words, just as two people sit down to settle terms for a divorce, they should sit down to settle terms for a civil union much like a prenuptial agreement but for ALL civil unions. There would be an absolute default civil union option. While Congress should define it, I am thinking something along the lines of a 50/50 split is said civil union fails in divorce.