First, married couples live longer and healthier lives. Studies have show that people in stable relationships are happier and more content than their single counterparts. If you forget the fact that these individuals are of the same sex, approach it from a fiscal conservative side. You want people to prosper so that society doesn't have to shell out cash for supporting or incarcerating them. In other words, SSM is cheaper than the alternative.
Second, removing freedom is not small government conservatism. Creating rules to enforce undesired criminal behaviors is justified. Doing the same to enforce moral codes is fascist (Think Mussolini). Enforcing morality is the purpose of Islamic Sharia law. If you think that Christian moral codes are somehow different than Islamic, think again. Both are Abrahamic religions and share the same origins. The reason their societies seem brutal is BECAUSE they enforce old testament beliefs.
Third, it doesn't harm marriage. The argument that it leads to the individuals marrying animals or trees is ridiculous on it's face. Marriage is a contract. Plants and animals cannot legally give consent to marriage, thus it can't happen. Therefore, existing laws protect us from this possibility and no additional laws are needed.
The conservative case for SSM is quite strong. The opposition however, is rooted in the same tired religious arguments that opposed civil rights and women's suffrage. We all know how those turned out.
No comments:
Post a Comment