I'm puzzled by the claim that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. I personally don't see that there is an inequality involved. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and as such does not discriminate against anyone. You have as much freedom as I do to enter into such a union. If this is not your desired union, that's fine too--you are free to not marry. You may even form a union with someone of the same sex. No, such a union is not a marriage, and no, you are not being discriminated against.
Sigh. You know people, we're dealing with basic biological reality here. The union of a man and woman is different from any other. It produces children. Oh, someone else might care for children, but reproduction only occurs through the uniting of male and female elements. And yes, this is significant. And marriage is designed to ensure that reproduction takes place in an appropriate environment, where the energy and resources of the two parents responsible will be available for the rearing of their offspring. Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships is a drastic re-writing of society's most fundamental institution. Don't try to tell me it is just a warm fuzzy equality issue. When did civil rights campaigns ever redefine the right they were addressing? Should we have freed the slaves by simply re-defining freedom to include the state of being owned by someone else? Should we have extended the vote to women by re-defining a vote to mean nothing more than a chance to tell someone what you think? If you have legitimate civil rights concerns, you need to find a way to address them that doesn't fundamentally change the right you are laying claim to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Paula, while I agree with you on this premise, there are other reasons that make voting YES ON PROPOSITION 8 completely logical.
1. Marriage has never been a RIGHT. Think about it. It requires a license. It requires fulfilling pre-determined criteria to be allowed to be married. The qualifications currently include age (varies from state to state, but under certain ages it is illegal, and a little older but still a minority, require parental consent); health - in most states they require a blood test (I was married 18 years ago and both my husband-to-be and I had to turn a blood test); and a certain distance of relationship, or in other words, we could not be cousins, brother and sister, etc.
The fact that I had to QUALIFY to receive APPROVAL to get married makes this a PRIVILEGE.
It is a PRIVILEGE to be able to drive a vehicle: You have to QUALIFY to have a LICENSE.
It is a PRIVILEGE to practice medicine: You have to QUALIFY to have a LICENSE.
It is a PRIVILEGE to build a house: You have to QUALIFY to have a contractor's LICENSE.
We could go through a very long list of PRIVILEGES for which one must have a LICENSE.
Before the state got involved in licensing marriages, it was still a PRIVILEGE to be married, and you had to QUALIFY according to the laws of God. Pretty much, they were the same thing here.
It is only recently that the issue that people of the same gender be married has come up because of an activist agenda that has continued to push the envelope.
Another reason to vote for Prop 8 is to send a message to activist judges who overturn the overwhelming majority of the electorate and imposing the will of a few upon the lives of the majority - AND their children!
In all three states where legalized same-sex marriage exists, it was foisted upon the electorate by judges - not a choice made by the majority of the people. This is tyranny, and is completely out of place in a democratic Republic like our nation.
Julie
In my mind, these three comments made sense together until I reread them. Hope you can get what I'm trying to say.
the reason I see for claiming it is a civil rights issue is that they want a 'protected' status, like race, gender... as if it were something that they have 'no control over'. They want the court battles that pit my religious belief of homosexuality being a serious sin against their protected status.
I don't know what makes a person have attraction towards someone of the same sex. I have theories, but, regardless it doesn't matter.
I am naturally attracted to men. It's not my fault. I was born that way. But it is still sin for me to go and sleep with every willing man just because adultry is legal.
If all homosexuals are looking for is the same rights under the law that every other couple is entitled to, then who are you to tell them they can not have it. Is it against the bible to want to have rights to see the person one has vowed to spend the rest of their life with in their last days in the hospital? You live and breath what the bible has to say. Good for you. Everyone should have faith in something or someone. It is not okay to force your beliefs onto someone else. I have been married to my wife since it was overturned by the courts. Think about how you would feel if all of a sudden your marriage license was stripped away from you because people of a different mind did not like it. I would never say to someone that they could not have the same privileges that I do simply because I do not believe in the way they live their lives. Marriage gives all of the rights that every couple should be entitled to under the law, civil unions do not. Lets think about how that sounds. Darling, will you civil union me? Ridiculous isn't it? Stop forcing your thoughts and way of life onto everyone else. Live your life and let others live theirs. All people should be treated equally.
As I understand it, the gist of the debate is whether the legal meaning of the "marriage" contract should include anything other than the traditional "one man - one woman" arrangement. As noted, that is the historic basis for the family unit because it aligns so nicely with biology! Parthenogenesis is for aphids.
From a strictly legal standpoint, recognition of same-sex marriages would open the door for a whole variety of other combinations that would clamor for equal status. A prime example is polygamy/polyandry. Right behind would be things like people marrying animals, or wanting the state to recognize marriages between animals. Once a legal term has been opened to allow something other than its traditional meaning, it's hard to put the genie back in the lamp.
I am something close to 100% certain the founders of this nation did not contemplate the constitution being amended for things such as this. That's why the amendment process is burdensome, to assure that only those changes truly deserving adoption could make it. For those of us solidly in the hetero camp, it is hard to understand how anyone could be attracted to their same sex. However, it obviously happens and no one fully understands how. Some will argue that it is "natural" and that "God made me this way, so it must be okay." Those are lame arguments and could be equally applied to any sexual or moral "perversion" such as child molestation, wife beating, bank robbing or driving a Hummer.
As our society declines morally and as people are more willing to define almost any kind of behavior as "normal" and acceptable, those behaviors become more common. The difficult question is, given our beliefs in the moral agency of man (by your choices and works, you define your eternal destiny as a Christian), what is the proper role of government in such matters.
Post a Comment