It's in the news, so of course it's on everyone's mind, so some one has to comment on it. Why not me?
"Well, if we allow 'X' then what will stop 'Y'?"
This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against just about anything that anyone can offer. The basis for this argument implies that the person presenting it agrees with 'X', in this case marriage equality, but disagrees with 'Y', which has ranged anywhere from marrying animals to inanimate objects to polygamy.
The slippery slope is the last stop on the anti-equality train. It came up during the 60's and it's rearing its ugly head again.
Now, I know that for some people the jury's still out on 'God', but I for one believe that if God didn't intend for everyone to be able to enjoy (or suffer in) the sanctity of marriage, He/She would have come out and said it some where in one of those books.
The other half of this argument is patently unconstitutional, since the first amendment stands between government and religion, and specifically standing between religion being used IN government.
So does philandering and adultery, but neither of those morally questionable activities are illegal. The irony of who it is that brings this argument up so frequently isn't lost on me either. Considering there aren't many political figures who aren't guilty of doing harm to the sanctity of marriage.
Now, I've read the bible, as well as the Qur'an and several other religious texts, and in none of these is even a single word uttered against the idea of same-sex marriage. The only mention of same sex relationships is in the Old Testament, the part of the Bible that the New Testament expressly abolishes.
Now, the argument here ranges from the impact on children to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. The problem is there's too many cases already on record of the children of same-sex couples becoming successful, literate, well-spoken professionals for this to be a valid argument. As well, considering how many kids are in foster care, the fact that a healthy, successful couple has chosen to offer up their home for a child who doesn't have one is a good thing. Regardless of whether that couple has interlocking groins.
Now, I'm what I've come to call a "Constitutionalist". How I define that is some one who supports both the letter and the spirit of the US Constitution. In my estimation, this is a clear cut matter of freedom of expression. Maybe marriage isn't public demonstration, but it is a public expression of love, from one person to another. What right does anyone else have to forbid that expression?
select one here...