Opinion Page

home > weblog > 2004 > february > blog020704.php

OK, so I haven't blogged in over a week. It's not like I get paid to blog, I just do it when the mood strikes me. And lately, it hasn't.

So, what's new in the universe? The Mars rovers haven't taken pictures of life itself, John Kerry is kicking the crap out of the rest of the Democrats, (which is fun to watch) and life goes on.

The school systems around this country still horribly and ineffectively ruins countless young lives on a daily basis through government education. My main beef with government schools is the sheer bias that's indoctrinated into kids' lives. The only tolerance is for the political correct party-line, and kids who show any moral fiber are immediately suspended for being moral.

I heard a compelling argument from Phil Hendry on the gay marriage issue. He made some good points. I will give him that. Now, I have nothing against gay people in general, although anyone who feels the need to flaunt their sexuality in my face still aggravates me. I don't care how you practice sex. If I want to know, I will ask you. Don't tell me if I'm not asking. And don't tell me that you have the right to be married, because marriage it a RITE, not a RIGHT.

Back to Phil Hendry's argument. Marriage is a symbol. It is a heterosexual symbol. It is a symbol which recognizes the specific rite in which a man and a woman go before others publicly to announce their exclusive union, the purpose of which is obviously to procreate. Why do I say obviously? Because a marriage can be annulled if it is not "consummated," a term which implies sexual congress. And the point of sex (biologically speaking) is for the purpose of procreation. Since you don't need anyone's permission for two consenting adults to have sex, the purpose of marriage must be about starting a family. Right?

So, the symbol represents a man and a woman and their intent to make a family. That is what that symbol represents. It isn't three people, and it isn't one person. It isn't two women, and it isn't two men. People die for their symbols. Our flag is a symbol. It represents our Freedoms, and the sacrifices many make to keep that symbol flying.

So, that being said, I am not against two people of the same sex forming some sort of "union." However, the term "marriage" isn't appropriate. And it shouldn't be formed so that they can adopt a child and raise him in that environment.

The gay community (to use a blanket term, for lack of a better one) should endeavor to come up with their own symbol. I don't care what it's called. But "marriage" is taken, and the term "civil union" leaves a lot to be desired. The term "homogenized" sounds more appropriate, but I don't think it will stick.

The example that I heard about symbols that really stuck in my brain was just imagine if one day the Jews decided to take the cross as its symbol. Would the Christians of the world like that? No. They'd tell the Jews to get their own symbol, that that symbol was theirs. And then it all made sense. If they want to get permanently joined, then let them come up with a new symbol to represent that. I don't know what to call it. But it should come with many of the same responsibilities that a marriage comes with. Someone should be accountable for financial security in the event of a dissolution of the union, and I think most people would also agree that children shouldn't be raised in an environment outside of marriage.

See what else I have to say Previous day's rant

Go to Top

If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, tell me about it.