This has been on my mind for a while, the "sanctity" of marriage. People who are opposed to gay marriage, often use this phrase, saying that if we let gay people marry each other, that it will ruin the sanctity of marriage. I pose a rebuttal to those folks; is the sanctity of marriage not already ruined due to the fact that people get benefits? I was once told that one of the reasons people don't want gay marriage legal is because two friends could get married and share benefits. If we really want to make marriage pure, and for pure love, shouldn't we just get rid of the benefits in general? If two people of the same sex can pretend to be in love and get married just for the benefits, why can't two people of the opposite sex? What do you think? Is the sanctity of marriage not already ruined? If it isn't, why not?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Recently, I was reading "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer, which is about a 24 year old who gives all of his money to charity, gets rid of his possessions, and decides to camp out in the Alaskan wilderness. At one point, Jon mentions how Chris couldn't understand how humanity could let people go hungry, especially in this country. I thought this was an extremely good point. I see people wasting food all the time, while a good portion of our population (especially during these tough economic times) is going hungry! I've recently started keeping a list of things I need to do. And number one on my list is to hand out hamburgers to homeless folks on the street, just like Chris did. I can't wait :)