I Solve the Gay "Marriage" "Problem"
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Alright JU I know you may think it's arrogant to claim that I, of all people, have the solution to this sensitive buzz issue, and it is, but bare with me and I think you'll agree there is something rational to be said in the following words, sentences, and paragraphs.
When I say that I have the solution, I don't mean that I convince one side that the other is right and the other is wrong, rather I'd like both polarized sides, and even those apathetic fence sitters to feel that justice has been served...and for the first time ever in politics I think this is very achievable.
There are many arguments against gay marriage coming from the Right. While each of these could be given a fair amount of analysis, in order for my solution to make any sense I'm going to claim that what it really boils down to is a religious definition of what a union between two people should look like. A union protecting the "sanctity of marriage" by the Right's definition involves the joining of a man and woman, and a man and a woman only. My solution will not change this.
The main argument from the Left is that gays deserve the same opportunity to achieve the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. My solution will not change this either.
So here it is.
Siding with the Right, I don't think gays should be allowed to "marry." "Marriage" will remain the union of a man and a woman by the grace of God, etc etc, until they choose to join the 50% of married couple who call it quits whether after 5 min. or 50 years.
Siding with the Left, I do think that gays should be allowed all the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples regardless of the large surpluses of sin that may result of such an "endorsement."
So how is this to be done? You'll notice that that I have placed marriage in quotes throughout this article. This was done with careful purpose. We simply need to give this union between gays a different name. This way the Right can keep saying "homos have no right to marry," and gays can say "we should enjoy the same rights."
When I presented this rant to a number of friends one of them suggested the term "rainbow union," using the classic symbol of gay pride to create a term that will lead us out of all this useless arguing and towards a life better spent on trying to figure out why the Ten Commandments are posted in public areas....or hopefully, something much more important.
This would be more thorough but I gotta get on my bike and get back to work,
happy Tuesday all,
Love SuspeckTed
PS - Straight guys (like myself) why get bummed about more gay guys coming out? It decreases the competition.
When I say that I have the solution, I don't mean that I convince one side that the other is right and the other is wrong, rather I'd like both polarized sides, and even those apathetic fence sitters to feel that justice has been served...and for the first time ever in politics I think this is very achievable.
There are many arguments against gay marriage coming from the Right. While each of these could be given a fair amount of analysis, in order for my solution to make any sense I'm going to claim that what it really boils down to is a religious definition of what a union between two people should look like. A union protecting the "sanctity of marriage" by the Right's definition involves the joining of a man and woman, and a man and a woman only. My solution will not change this.
The main argument from the Left is that gays deserve the same opportunity to achieve the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. My solution will not change this either.
So here it is.
Siding with the Right, I don't think gays should be allowed to "marry." "Marriage" will remain the union of a man and a woman by the grace of God, etc etc, until they choose to join the 50% of married couple who call it quits whether after 5 min. or 50 years.
Siding with the Left, I do think that gays should be allowed all the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples regardless of the large surpluses of sin that may result of such an "endorsement."
So how is this to be done? You'll notice that that I have placed marriage in quotes throughout this article. This was done with careful purpose. We simply need to give this union between gays a different name. This way the Right can keep saying "homos have no right to marry," and gays can say "we should enjoy the same rights."
When I presented this rant to a number of friends one of them suggested the term "rainbow union," using the classic symbol of gay pride to create a term that will lead us out of all this useless arguing and towards a life better spent on trying to figure out why the Ten Commandments are posted in public areas....or hopefully, something much more important.
This would be more thorough but I gotta get on my bike and get back to work,
happy Tuesday all,
Love SuspeckTed
PS - Straight guys (like myself) why get bummed about more gay guys coming out? It decreases the competition.
Descent from noah and relinquishing his symbol? Did I miss something here?