Monday, January 24, 2011

Is the left helping same sex marriage?

Is same sex marriage even an issue, sadly government makes it so by stepping into an area it thinks it needs to control.

We see and endless parade of the statist religionist right spewing drivel about the evils of gayness, but where is the left, supporting the statist position of course.

Marriage or the union of people in a serious committed relationship is a personal issue, the domain of consenting adults who decide to rise above a simple relationship of sex to one of partnership love and responsibility. A partnership recognized by most as more than just a string of romps in the hay.

The sad part of course is when the left wants to increase the original grab for power and tax income to officially “sanction” a partnership. The problem becomes in defining what a marriage is and just who has access to what benefits may be a part of that partnership.

Few outside of the far religious right would deny that a committed adult relationship should give the partners the rights of visitation, inheritance, medical, insurance contracts, and powers of attorney where appropriate. Even the attempt a defining a marriage cheapens the entire affair to a certificate stamped by some uninterested public servant. Getting government out of the quagmire would actually help, it would allow the social groups the freedom to define personal relationships as desired.

Problems arise when the immature and irrational left feels it necessary to let the issue fall into the hands of the religionists with rhetoric that cheapens the debate to an issue based on sex or sex acts.

Not too long ago I posted this. Change the world? Global, Local, or Personal?

Family or the personal definition of “a family" is one of the reasons I reject “legal” government recognized (and taxed) “marriage” (and “family”). Who you call or claim is your “significant other” is the personal business of the individual or individuals involved. I believe it requires two (or more) adult cognizant and willing (not under duress, coercion or force) and consenting (willing to accept the terms of the personal/social contract) human partners/participants.

For the silly and stupid wanting to point out the “human only” part, I do not recognize ownership of an animal as valid to replace consent. Until valid, provable, repeatable communication with any creature and humans is established this is not an option. Until communication and self-awareness along with the clear concept of freedom of refusal is established I consider any relationship invalid I use this same reason for the refusal to recognize pedophilia as a valid relationship.

Some of the juvenile left seems to want to equate marriage with sex acts and even the love of livestock falling into the hands of the irrational religionists. The idiots are not your friends, obviously the title of leftist is used as a cloak to cover idiocy and deflect criticism as if it is some shield of political correctness over the insanity.

No comments:

Post a Comment

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails