HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Inglorious Bastards

On "Marriage"

The gay marriage issue has gotten so PC as to escape sarcasm. Why is this word so important to the gay community?

In most of Europe and Canada, the problem has been EASILY solved by creating some sort of law that covers all forms of pairing. In other words any two people can make the same legal commitment to each other as is now called "marriage" here. Most couples of opposite gender choose pairing because religion is less popular in those countries than it is here. It seems to me we could just follow the lead of these more sophisticated societies, with the understanding that religion is a bigger deal here than ti is in the old country/

From my POV, is see no reason to restrict pairing at all. You want to pair with your daughter, your son, your cousin ... just make all pairings equal. If mutually infertile genders (same sex) can pair then what earthly reason is there NOT to allow a brother and a sister to pair as long as they do not intend to copulate? Is "marriage" a synonym for commitment PLUS copulations? Is "marriage" a licence to fuck?

This issue, BTW is very real for many older people who want to live together and commit to one another for financial and companionship reasons. Do these elderly couples need to fuck each other too? It seems easier just to recognize the legitimate desire of any two people to commit to each other without redefining marriage?

I have a funny story in this regard. Sometime ago I had a fellow from Quebec. She and her husband were paired rather than married. His fellowship ended so they asked for support for his health care. Under Seattle law, since they were not gay, the insurance company refused him coverage! ... I did suggest they claim to be a heterosexual gay couple but that did not help either. Apparently, under the law, is you are fucking each other you need to be gay OR married?
So it seems pretty clear that having a pairing law would solve all the legal issues.

Would a pairing law, one that allowed all forms of pairing, satisfy the "gay marriage" crowd? I do not think so. These folks, both gays and straights, want the shadow lifted from gay couples. In Jewish terms, the advocates of gay marriage want to spread the canopy of marriage wide enough to include those of the same gender. Isn't marriage far more of a social and religious issue than a government issue?.

If the government were to redefine marriage, a new problem would arise because we would still need laws or social mores to deal with biology. Men and women are as different as ... men and women. Male -female pairings have implications other pairings do not have ranging from the need of each gender to accept the biologic needs of the other (eg leaving the toilet seat in the correct position) to the differences in potential for physical violence. Pretending that these differences do not exist is as foolish as pretending that rape is just assault.

If we dispose of the term marriage, do we get to invent a new term for male/female couples?