So, Britain has just decided to legalize gay marriage. While I generally think that this is a good (and long overdue) step, I wish it had abolished marriage altogether instead. Here is why:
1) It is discriminatory. Sure, it has just gotten a lot less discriminatory towards a number of minority groups. They can be broadly divided into
a) those who might want to get married but cannot, including but not restricted to polyamorous relationships (either one person wishing to get married to several people (e.g. person A wanting to get married to person B and person C) or multiple people wanting to get married to each other (e.g. person A, B and C all marrying each other) and those wishing to marry their relatives (and don’t bring that „ewwww, that’s disgusting“ argument – that is exactly how a lot of people feel about gay marriage and it is not a valid reason to deny people certain rights. Nobody says that YOU are supposed to get married to a member of your family). And
b) Those who simply do not want to get married because they don’t feel the kind of „romantic (sexual) love“ (e.g. those on the autism spectrum, asexuals) or because they have political or personal reasons for not wanting to get married.
Now for those who say: But wait, the latter group actually has a choice! They could still get married! Yeah. But they don’t want to. And they shouldn’t have to in order to get tax benefits etc.
2) It doesn’t even make any fucking sense. Marriage laws were established in a very different time. A time in which birth control, among other things, was pretty much not an option. Now let’s consider this for today’s society. Here are the two main arguments that I hear in favor of marriage:
a) It’s worth supporting people who raise children together. Yep. I agree. But this is not what marriage laws do these days. They support two people in a monogamous relationship. Give tax benefits to those who raise kids together, whether it be a single mom, a man and his grandma, two women, two male best friends, a mother and her two best friends, a family of two gay men and two gay women – it shouldn’t matter. If you still believe in the whole „blablabla but a kid needs a mom and a dad blablabla traditional family blablabla“ bullshit, then just… go away… play somewhere else. I’d suggest the 1950s. They seem like a good place to go for you.
b) It’s worth supporting people who have decided to be committed to each other, help each other out in times of needs etc. … Well, this is still discriminatory against those who are not able to have any close relationships at all but I get what you are saying. I understand why a government might want to support this – because person A caring for person B when person B is sick is really useful. They don’t have to pay person A, but they’d have to pay someone if person A and person B were not in some sort of committed relationship. In exchange for this useful commitment, person A and B get a number of fluffy things, ranging from tax benefits to visiting rights in the hospital or the right to remain silent in court (at least in Germany). So far so good. But why on earth does this have to be a contract between two people in a romantic, sexual relationship? I personally am much more committed to some close friends than to almost all sexual partners that I have ever had (even at the time I had them) and I am pretty sure I am not the only one. And why, again, can I apparently only have this commitment to one person? The same argument that applied to children applies here.
… I have to get back to doing my actual work now. This was written in a rush. But please share your opinion, especially if you disagree with me, in the comments. Thanks for taking the time to read my rant.