on irrelevant arguments

We went out of town last week, which meant I had time to catch up a teeny tiny bit on my saved podcasts. I like to put them on while we drive and la mia famiglia concedes to this for a while.

We listened to the August 6th edition of the domestic hour of the news roundup on the Diane Rehm Show (can I get prepositional phrases for $200, Alex?). One caller commented on the ability of gay people to legally marry. He said, in part, "They [gay individuals] have the right to marry and unfortunately they don't have the desire to marry within the framework that's available. They have the same right as everyone else." Really? Seriously?

I could tell that he had really thought his position through, but this argument is just ridiculous. Let's say practicing Mormonism was against the law. Would this caller, who identified himself as Mormon, be okay with being told, "You can practice a religion, just like everyone else, but it has to be Judaism. You have the same right as everyone else to practice religion"? I know that my analogy here isn't great, but it's the best I can come up with right now.

I will never understand opposition to gay marriage, or hatred and fear of gay people. I think it's such a joke when people argue that they are protecting the sanctity of marriage by opposing gay marriage. People marry and they remain committed solely to one another. People marry and they divorce. People marry and they have extramarital affairs. People marry and abuse their spouses. I'm married and I love my marriage (even when it's rocky), and I think it's ridiculous for gay couples to not be able to experience this also. How is a woman marrying a woman or a man marrying a man going to detract at all from my marriage?

Okay, stepping down now...for the time being.

-------------

P.S. Here I go defining marriage as being between one person and one other person. Polygamy (and marrying oneself, possibly?) is a different topic for a different day, perhaps.