an attempt of the Carrie Bradshaw column
::::::::.flickr.com/photos/58143508@N02/13892609184/: Shubhika & Ranvir Pre Wedding Mumbai" title="From .flickr.com/photos/58143508@N02/13892609184/: Shubhika & Ranvir Pre Wedding Mumbai" src="http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7350/13892609184_98a7123eb0_n.jpg" width="216">
(The Carrie Bradshaw column)
Carrie Bradshaw from the Sex and the City writes a column on sex and associated issues. I was wondering I could touch a subject of Gay Marriage the same way.
The primary argument for the Gay Marriage is irrefutable: two people love each other and want to live together in a matrimony. Nobody can argue against that. The only aspect to discus here is that 'love' thing. Love and marriage are not always together; marriage also can take place without love. In fact, love is rare; mush more often marriage takes place due to the following causes:
- for lust
- for mutual understanding
- for the children
- for the union of life forces
- for arrangement
- for respect
- for the fear of solitude
- for temporary fix
Human life is complex and all of the above reasons for marriage are accepted in the human society as the private matter of the parties involved. Love though is acknowledged as a charming bonus but people do accept that it can exist without marriage; how many cases do we know when love took place on its own? Love thus is a gift from God and it can come and go as it pleases Are the gay folks ready to accept the simple premise that marriage, the way we handle it is more about who we are than what we claim to be? Should they just simply say that the two people had decided to live together and it is none of other's business why? In all honesty, marriage is just a civic act between the two consenting adults.
So, by the power invested in me I pronounce you married. You don't have to kiss the bride if you don't want to.