Gay marriage is a touchy subject for me. On one hand this is one of the few things I'm somewhat "liberal" about. Our fore fathers set up a system that yes, was to be founded on judeo-christian principles, but above all else was designed to be free. Abraham lincoln was a staunch supporter of the idea that you should be allowed to do anything you want so long as it doesn't hurt the community or another individual. I agree. When did it become the government's place to say who could or could not get married?
I kind of follow in the footsteps of Gov. Jesse Ventura in saying that regardless of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it's not the government's place to say who can and cannot be wed. It only seems logical that a couple who have devoted themselves to one another be allowed to receive all civil benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.
On the other hand. Homosexuality, in many ways is seen as deviant. Liberals tend to follow Darwin's theory of evolution and prescribe to the notion that only the strong survive in nature. If Humans really did follow this line of thought, then homosexuality could never sustain itself. People would learn that homosexuality prevents reproduction and have no need for it. Although, along the same line of thought, it may prove that homosexuality is not a learned behavior but something coded into a person's DNA. Homosexuality wouldn't exist under darwinism if it were a learned behavior.
What I'm trying to say, is that I really have no idea what is right. Why promote a practice that could potentially be harmful to a community. If homosexuality is a learned behavior and allowed to continue to grow due to new civil freedoms, our ability to reproduce could be hampered, or our available DNA pool limited. I realize I'm looking at a gross view of the subject that may not play out for thousands of years, but I'm just throwing out "what ifs".
Untill someone can convince me otherwise, I agree with Gov. Ventura, once again. I say we should eliminate marriage as a civil union all together. If someone wants to be married and recognized as a couple through church, so be it, let the individual, private churches make those distinctions. We would then simply have civil unions for tax and legal purposes with no hint of the word marriage or definitions for those who can be in a civil union.
Anyone have an argument that might sway me? I'd love to hear people's (non-radical) thoughts on this. I'm a pretty open guy. I just don't know what to think about gay marriage.