Gay marriage seems like a weird thing to look at in class, with how controversial it is, but I did like the essays. Well, the second one. The first one was annoying. And my reasoning in that is, right off the bat Colson claims that queerness only began when the sexual revolution "led to the decoupling of marriage and procreation". When has marriage ever only been about procreation? If humans were only here to make more humans, why bother with marriage at all? Everyone just have at it, with every man and woman you meet. The more the merrier.
Marriage is a bond that is not sex. Marriage may not have always stood for love and support, as it does (in most cases) today, but it has always represented unity and partnership. And I'm not sure why Colson thinks allowing people of the same gender to marry is capable of "destroying" the idea of family. Allowing people to get married brings families closer, it makes new ones, it creates nothing but good possibilities. Maybe it's only Colson who thinks of marriage as a vice for procreation. Infertile couples, elderly couples, couples who don't want kids, all marry happily and freely. I believe Colson needs to stop making excuses for his discrimination and see that marriage is about hope. It's about happiness. And it's about love.
That was literally the best response to anti-gay marriage that I have read. You sum everything up in an awesome and simple way. I wish that people could just see how ignorant they are when they use the Bible and procreation as an excuse to discriminate.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. That first essay was bogus and didn't sit well with me. I honestly believe that people should mind their own business and leave how others want to live their lives to their self.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Although I believe that each person is entitled to their own belief, I think its bit hypocrital to throw in the religious card when it comes to gay marriage. But it really doesnt give the gay rights supporters to make a huge deal out of it either.
ReplyDelete