"Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam... "

The issue of gay marriage really irritates me.

And I know what I am about to say will probably cause my G to disown me.

I follow this issue relatively closely because I am told by anti gay marriage people that gay marriage is a "threat to the institution of marriage." As I am married, this is obviously an issue that would concern me, right?

Furthermore, Virginia (what I consider my "home" state though I am now in Maryland) is currently considering passing further legislation against gay marriage. The state of Virginia already defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so this further legislation seems rather unnecessary.

So I have listened to their arguments about how gay marriage is a threat. Here's the four main arguments I have heard:

1) Gay marriage would weaken "real" marriages.
2) The Bible says its wrong.
3) Gay marriage would pave the way for people to marry anything they want-animal, inanimate object, etc...
4) The purpose of marriage is to have children. Gay marriage does not allow for procreation, therefore should not be allowed.

Here are my thoughts:
1) People of the same sex and in other countries have been marrying for quite some time now. To my knowledge, Michael is still my husband and I still love him. So that rules that argument out-the marriage of two people of the same sex appears to have had no effect on my own marriage.
2) Part A: There is a separation of church and state-therefore, the Bible should not determine our nation's laws. Part B: Not everyone in America adheres to the Bible. Parts of the Bible advocate slavery too.
3) I will not address point three as it is silly.
4) This is the point that really gets me. I heard on NPR yesterday or this morning someone from the Cultural Commission on Marriage (I am getting this wrong and I don't care-if they have enough time in their lives to waste energy on this non-issue instead of worrying about important things like feeding the poor, war, etc, then I do not care to waste the energy to look up their organization's actual name.) arguing that same sex marriage does not allow for the "ancient tradition" of procreation. Two arguments against this: One, by accepting that statement, you are also implying that people who choose not to or are not able to have kids should not be allowed to be married. Marriage for procreation purposes only is a primitive notion that was necessary when the human race faced a problem of a decreasing population. This is not currently a concern of ours. Two, there are many gay couples who are willing to adopt children who have been rejected by their heterosexual parents. Why is it ok to choose to sire a child but not rear it, but not the other way around? Surely, more work and love are poured into a child's upbringing (or should be at least) than into a child's creation. I commend any two people, regardless of their sex, for making the decision to bring a child into their lives.

So that's my little outburst. I welcome any counterarguments.