Gay Marriage vs. Traditional Marriage The solution to this problem is simple: what is the POINT of being married? It’s something that society has generally taken very seriously for a very long time. It seems to be quite universally accepted as a man and a woman.

Why is this relatively universal?

Why hasn’t Gay Marriage been tried before?

These questions need to be answered. I’m no sociologist, just a bitch with a weblog, so the best I can do is write down what I think.

The 20th century saw genuine steps forward in making men equal to women. There have been other points in history where men and women were more or less equal, and one could certainly argue that influence women held made up for lack of genuine rights (indeed, wars were fought over women, how much more influence do you want?). But the 20th century went a long way in establishing that men and women are equally people.

Before this equalisation, women were frequently seen as property; first of their fathers, then of their husbands. Marriage was a partnership, but the ‘obey’ clause clearly indicated who was the senior partner.

Now that women have achieved equality with men, it seems they are now interchangeable with men (and vice versa).

That’s why it’s never happened before: women have never had enough status that they could be supplanted by a man: it wouldn’t make sense for one man to turn over all his assets to another. But now that’s not an issue.

Marriage has been watered down, thanks to divorce, pre-nuptial agreements, common-law arrangements. Gay marriage isn’t wrecking anything, the Traditional Definition of Marriage has already been wrecked!

Marriage is now the joining of equals, who can choose to end the joining!

If we want to end gay marriage, we can only do it by stripping away women’s rights.

THAT, my dear readers, is a bad idea.

So, I’m in support of Gay Marriage, because it is the sign that women are 100% equal with men.
  ¶ 3:00 PM