cat -v harmful stuff

The hypocrisy of Gay Marriage and why government should get out of the marriage business.

Advocates of ‘gay marriage’ claim that they are fighting for ‘equal rights’, but in reality what they are pushing for is to have ‘privileged rights’ extended to themselves. This by itself is hardly surprising, all groups like to advocate special rights for themselves, but the hypocrisy in this case is too great to ignore.

For centuries homosexuals have had to suffer discrimination and abuse, fortunately as the dark ages have started to fade illuminated by enlightenment and humanism this discrimination and abuse have also diminished. Because all this they should know better than now ask for special rights.

Why instead of railing against the special treatment received by married couples do they want those ‘rights’ extended to another special group that now suits them?

Why it is not OK to discriminate against gays but it is fine to discriminate against singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other of the infinite possible forms of interpersonal relationships?

When ‘strong artificial intelligence’ becomes a reality (hah!), will we need to have another movement for ‘AI marriage’?

What is ‘marriage’ anyway?

Marriage is a cultural and religious tradition, but traditions exist to be changed and adapt to new times, and in any modern secular society no religion can claim any authority over anyone other than its willful (and I might add ‘delusional’) followers.

So why should government ever dictate the meaning and rules that should govern a tradition? Why should government endorse a particular form of this (rather barbaric) tradition?

There is no justification for the word ‘marriage’ to be part of any law. And if so inclined, it should be up to the involved parties to come up with a contractual agreement that fits their wishes.

Not only this, but any involvement of government in trying to define ‘marriage’ would go directly against the basic principles of separation of church and state, and by eroding that separation advocates of ‘gay marriage’ are basically conceding that their religious opponents are correct and that religion and politics should be allowed to mix.

Religious followers should also oppose governments being involved in defining marriage, some day their particular religious group wont be in control of government and they will have to accept a new definition they don’t agree with (as is happening right now in places that start to recognize gay marriages).

If religious folks really care about being able to decide what marriage means, for them, the only way to ensure this is to keep government completely out of it, of course any religion with political power soon forgets this and tries to enforce their arbitrary views on everyone else. Yet another example of how religion while claiming the omnipotent authority of God always seems to need the help of government to enforce their silly ideas on others.

If you are a religious person, why do you need a government law that dictates what marriage means for you? If you really believe, shouldn’t you follow your religious laws anyway? Let your religion decide what marriage means, and if you disagree nothing keeps you from switching religions or even creating your own (or, God forbid! just do away with the whole archaic and backwards concept of religion).

But, think of the children!

Amusingly enough, a rather common argument often heard in defense of ‘marriage’ is that somehow it helps protect children (exactly how nobody has explained). Nevermind that in modern societies most children have either unmarried parents or divorced parents.

Even if somehow it was true that marriage has some benefit for children, why should children of couples that decided to get married get special treatment? What about children of unmarried parents? Parents that (like this humble writter) find the concept of ‘marriage’ repulsive? Or of single parents? or orphans? Or adoptive children? Why should all of them be discriminated against?

Specially given that children have no saying on the married status of their parents it seems extremely unfair to endow some of them with some (supposed) benefits and not others.

Whatever legal alleged benefits marriage provides for children they should apply to all children.


The only way to really end all discrimination related to marriage is to get government out of the marriage business.

See also