Gay Marriage: Posted June 14, 2003

(NB: This was in response to a post on another blog saying by accepting gay marriage we would open pandora's box and promote deviant behaviour of all kinds. The original post also heavily relied on religious issues which is why God was brought up a number of times in my response below.)

So a man and another man can elope. Good for them. Will this end up normalizing "deviant" behaviours like necro-pedo-beastaphilia? Maybe. Do we have to worry? Apart from a few strange pieces of legislation, probably not. God takes care of what is right and wrong while evolution takes care of what works and what doesn't. Either way we've got it covered. Who cares what the government thinks or if you can get a piece of paper with your name on it.

If nothing else, this whole debate should serve to illustrate the problems with having written laws in the first place. Yeah these laws can mostly be traced back to Judeo-Christian laws but those in turn were basically extensions of the laws of nature -- what had worked for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. How out of touch with reality is humanity? So so-and-so can't "jump" so-and-so because of blah-blah-blah as opposed to well, we'll see what evolution has to say about that. We're so caught up in our own little world we can't see that evolution (or god for that matter) doesn't give a rats ass what our laws say... if it doesn't work we're gone. Poof. We're so far removed from that mentality that we may not even see disaster coming. We break so many laws of nature that the entire ecosystem may collapse. How are two brothers supposed to realize incestuous behaviour is not in their best interests?

Reading the above again, it may sound as though I'm suggesting that homosexuality is deviant behaviour that is against the laws of nature and will therefore lead to our downfall. That's not what I'm saying at all. Homosexuality is deviant behaviour but deviation isn't necessarily bad. Who knows? Not me, not you, not Bob. Only evolution (or god if you swing that way) can tell for sure.

So if two people want to make a commitment to each other, why should the state have a say? Why should the church have a say for that matter? Why should anyone have a say except for those two people and any lucky friends and family they choose to include? Let's make it personal.

Let Randy be.

If the two people want to include the state or the church that is great. If it is their choice, that will make the ceremony that much more meaningful for them. But neither should be required. How can an anarchist wed at city hall? How can an atheist wed in a church? What's an anarchist atheist supposed to do? How can they get married (ie, make the commitment) without cheapening the experience (for them and everyone else) by going through the motions at an institution they don't believe in? Can they not get married then? Is their commitment to their mate not as meaningful they don't deserve to be considered married?

If marriage is personal and can include the state or church, I think that would create a much stronger bond between the couple. They do it their way.

Pedophelia doesn't get a boost in any way as there's a clear distinction between doing something illegal (pedophelia) and not making something legal (not forcing a couple to get married via the state.)