For 4/20, I’d like to propose some revolutionary drug policies that might be revolutionary enough you’d think I was high or something. Alas, I hate to disappoint you, but getting high doesn’t produce this kind of revolutionary thinking. Besides, reality is by far the best drug around and it’s my drug of choice. But have a read and see what you think.
Why are people so vehement to defend the institution of marriage against same-sex marriage when marriage fails approximately half the time?
What’s so sacred about something that fails half of the time?
What do you put up with in your life that fails half of the time or more besides baseball hitters who are deemed good at a 30% success rate?
At 50% divorce rates, marriage is bordering on failure as a whole. There needs a better policy on marriage if it’s going to be held up as being sacred, like a maximum of 3 divorces before it becomes taboo. This is because, frankly, I expect better of something sacred.
If you want to use National Rifle Association (NRA) “logic”, popular among conservatives, that marriages don’t divorce, people divorce, the way they say guns don’t kill people, people kill people, then who cares who marries? Work on the people!
Besides, why are people so worried about other people’s marriages when they can’t keep their own together half the time? Maybe if they kept their minds and energy on their own marriages instead of someone else’s marriage, they’d be together longer. That goes for affairs as well as same-sex marriage concepts, although this is not just some theoretical musing. US states allowing or considering legalizing same-sex marriage have drops in divorce rates, while those most strongly opposed have increases, not to mention among the highest rates in the US (TalkToAction.org).
And you know why? One word. Tolerance.
It’s the same reason that the states which aren’t tolerant to same-sex marriages aren’t tolerant to other issues in their marriage and divorce. A change in social attitude would seem to influence a change in attitude within one’s own marriage as well. That would not be surprising considering how humans are such social creatures heavily influenced by social norms as peer pressure demonstrates quite powerfully.
Seems to me that if you want to preserve the institution and sacredness of marriage, defending it against same-sex isn’t the way to go but rather allowing it.
Now, Vermont legalized same-sex marriage last April 7, and the first to legalize it by legislature (politicians voted, vetoing the governor, rather than handed down by law from the court system). If I were people in other states, I’d line up to make it legal rather than fight it, even if only ultimately to delay the inevitable because it is only inevitable.
Don’t agree with any of this? Come on. Try and convince me. Give me a better argument! I challenge you.