Est. May 2008

26 March, 2013

Better Up Your Game

With Proposition 8 and DOMA facing a Supreme Court challenge, this picture has started floating around Facebook:

If the only argument against either of these is the ‘right to marry whom you love’, here’s a hint to the homosexual activists: up your game, since your argument stinks.

Just because you love someone doesn’t mean you ought to have the right to marry them.  I’m sure you, my readers, have a sibling or two or parents whom you love dearly – does that mean you have the right to marry them?  Oh, but (the argument will run) that’s incest!  Yes, it is, but it becomes a moot point when you’re arguing for the right to marry someone because you love them.  Incest, consanguinity, potential birth defects – all of that ends up becoming moot when you’re basing the right to marry on love.

So the question is, what do the activists mean when they say ‘love’; after all, you can love someone without being married to them, right?  Well, think about it – what’s the difference between the love you have for a sibling, parent, cousin…shoot, even a pet, and the love you have for a spouse?  Hint: 3 letters, begins with ‘s’, ends with ‘x’, has an ‘e’ in the middle.  Certainly there are other differences, but they pale in comparison to sex – you may tell a spouse things you wouldn’t tell a brother or sister or parent, for instance, but you’re not going to be having sex with any of them.

And yet, homosexual sex isn’t illegal in the US – oh, there are anti-sodomy laws, but they’re rarely enforced, and if you’re engaging in sex in the privacy of your own home, no cop’s going to arrest you for it – they will, however, arrest you if you’re having sex in public and get caught, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s hereto or homo or bestial.

And surprise, surprise…you can love someone without having sex with them!  I know, that’s a novel concept for some, but you really can do it.

As these cases come before the Supremes I offer one suggestion to the justices: remember Tina Turner – what’s love got to do with it?

No comments: