Saturday, April 14, 2007

Bobby Muckle and the Sexual Revolt

One day, I will write a children's book with this title...

Even though I hold a lot of strong political opinions, I'm frequently capable of seeing an issue from both sides. For example, I favor the decriminalization of pretty much every drug. Marijuana, ecstacy, crystal meth, black tar heroin. You name it, I think you should be able to put it in yourself without going to jail afterwards. I hold this opinion because no one has ever been able to devise an opposing argument that I find utterly convincing.

However, I can sympathize with those who feel differently. Drug addiction is a horrible, destructive thing, and the desire to keep some of the more hardcore drugs, like crack or PCP, away from people comes from a good place. I just don't think it has proven to be effective public policy.

The gay marriage issue, though? I'm sorry, I just don't see the sense of the other side on that one. If two people want to marry one another, they should be able to get married. Done. Consensual? Hey, it's fine by me.

This really only gets murky in a few rare cases. If a brother and sister want to get married, that might have unpleasant biological consequences (though I still think they should probably be able to do it). If a man wants to marry five wives, well, usually those situations indicate some level of coercion...but I still don't favor outright prohibition. And, obviously, a child under, I'd say, 16, probably is not mature enough to consent to something long-term and legally-binding like marriage.

Other than that...go to town. It's freedom, baby.

Aside from lame-ass slippery slope arguments, what has the Reich wing got on this one?

"Historically, marriage has always been between a man and a woman." Um, no it hasn't, it has always been between a man and a whole shitload of other women, plus occasionally other men and attractive animals.

"Marriage is about procreation." Um, no it isn't, we let the infertile and the elderly get married. NEXT!

"We're eradicating the meaning of the word 'marriage'." Amazingly, I've actually heard people take this position. It's terribly bad form to reduce a civil rights issue to a semantic argument about the dictionary definition of "marriage." Also, there's no evidence of any form to suggest that legalizing homosexual marriage has any impact whatsoever on the quality, quantity or duration of heterosexual marriages.

Bobby Muckle, VP of the "Connecticut Right to Life Corporation," which sounds like a charming organization with a riveting monthy newsletter, offers a bold argument against gay marriage in this video over at AlterNet. Gay marriage, according to Mr. Muckle, causes global warming. Seriously. Just go watch...

1 comment:

kathylenhardt said...

When I read your first line, my first thought was, "...and one day you'll be able to." Have you seen Idiocracy?

You're going to hate this, Lonnie, but the English teacher in me can't let go of what you feel is the weakest argument--the semantic one. I have absolutely NO problem with civil union. My sister-in-law is in her second (third? The fact that it's been that many bothers me, but I know that problem is just as prevalent in heterosexuality.). I see no reason to legislate the change of a definition. If civil union rights are given to homosexual couples, the definition of the word will probably change gradually without a fight, so isn't it more important just to change civil union laws?