I don't think I have much to say about this. Yes, I support gay marriage. Yes, I think it will happen, although universally in North America it will take as much as 20 years. No, I don't see how they will adversely affect the institution.

If you consider an economic basis of value being that the more rare something is, the more valuable it is, and then apply this to marriage, then you could sort of see, from a gut-feeling sort of way, why some might oppose gays marrying. They feel as though since anyone can get married, not just those in their little club, their institutional value would go down. Another example is for those clubs that admit only women, such as the YWCA, or those clubs that admit only blacks, such as I-have-no-idea. If they started admitting men, or whites there, then the reason for the existence of these clubs would cease to have any meaning, and the value of the membership, or marriage, would go down with respect to the rest of society.

This argument breaks down slightly when you consider that marriage is for the majority, not a minority with diminished social status. For example, there's a reason why whites-only clubs are now considered repugnant. Every day is Whitey Day. The whole society is more or less forced to cater to the culture of White North America. Businesses are run by White standards. Conversations with White people, which are everywhere, are often directed toward the way White people perceive their surroundings. It isn't hard to see things from a Whiote point of view if you have seen it everywhere you look. Whites don't need White clubs. The existence of them is offensive. On the other hand, ethnic associations (I shouldn't use that word, much, because in common use it means "other" or "not like real Canadians/Americans", depending on your POV) are needed by the communities as a way to keep customs alive or just to connect with people that have the same experiences. This is extremely difficult to do when there is no strong acceptance within the White community.

Straights-only marriages are the same thing as whites-only restaurants, or whites-only marriages, for that matter. There really is a direct connection between this issue and interracial marriages. In Oakville, Ontario in 1930 the Klan marched into a home and snatched a white girl from the arms of her black fiancé and then threatened the man's life while the community and the police chief commended them. Why such a reaction? Because even though there were no laws prohibiting such a union, society felt threatened by this interloper getting in on their party and wanted him gone. They wanted to exclude him, and in a larger sense, tried to use the denial of marriage as a way to subjugate another group of people. I feel it is the same thing with gay marriages. Even though some people still look askance at interracial unions, they usually just deal with it and move on despite their misgivings. We look back now, especially those too young to remember the systemic discrimination in Canada, and wonder how we could have allowed such wrongness to occur. Imagine what they will say in 2054 about now.

No, I believe that this is a foregone conclusion, but it wil take some time. Maggie Gallagher has a "but-what-about-the-children" argument: "Either marriage never was or should not now be about getting mothers and fathers for children. Don't expect to raise a generation of boys to be good family men in a society that treats the idea that children need fathers, as well as mothers, as a species of bigotry."

For the record, I support fathers. I believe that we need more men that are willing and able, both practically and legally to raise their children effectively. I believe that children have a right to be raised by its biological parents unless one or both of them poses a real threat to the child's well-being. I believe that divorce adversely affects a man's ability to be a father (as opposed to simply being a provider of money and/or good times).

I don't believe that marriage does though, no matter what kind of marriage that is, assuming that the person involved is married to a decent and stable person. If a boy comes from a good family, then why shouldn't he be a good family man? This is purely conjecture, but gay men have probably been forced to not think of themselves as family men because they can't marry anyway. Maybe this is why they are seen as such incredible sluts. I mean, if I wasn't allowed to marry and be all responsible and shit, or even be seen as capable of having a serious relationship with marriage or no marriage, sluttiness seems like a reasonable alternative, but that's just me. If I weren't allowed to have a serious relationship, I'd want one all the more. (Maybe I am taking my rights for granted...? Ahh, another discussion for another time.)

I don't believe that children necessarily need a man and a woman raising them, but I think that it is nice if possible. For example, two mommies and an uncle could be nice. Or really, just any combination of adults with different backgrounds but a common purpose: to make sure the child has the guidance and love that he needs growing up. I wonder is anyone noticed the fact that I said guidance before love.

One negative thing I expect from this, though, instead of having a bunch of gloating smug marrieds, there will be a bunch of gloating smug gay marrieds, which will be worse because they will be like the nouveau riche of marriage. Arrogant and smarmy, and shoving it in your face every chance they get even more than the annoying bitch with the big ring and shows it off everywhere. I really hate those people and I am glad I don't know any. Heh.

And so concludes this series of marriage-related entries. I hope to have other subjects soon. I suppose I need another project now.