Saturday, December 04, 2004
Gay Marraige
Okay, it's in the news and everybody (back home) is apparently talking about it. I read an article just now on yahoo news about some trial in California which will eventuall make it's way to the Cali Supreme Court and make a more definite decision about all this. Both I don't really like either side's aruguement. The RIGHT keeps talking about how it is traditional and how heterosexuals make better parents. These are stupid arguements and the people that are using them are only using them because they are opposed to homosexuality in the first place and look for any excuse they can find to keep them from being accepted as "like everybody else." The LEFT's arguement is "well, why not?" Or rather, "We should get to do that too; you guys are being unfair." It's frustratig to hate both sides of an arguement. Kinda like with the elections. I wish a decent third party would stand up. It would cause reform in both of the major parties. So, back to the subject at hand...
So, my question is, what is the definition of marriage? The RIGHT has made it clear that they define it as the joining of one man and one woman (although history would call bigamists married as well). The yahoo article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&e=8&ncid=519) claims that the RIGHT is trying to say that marriage is for the purposes of childbearing and raising, but the LEFT does a very good job of destroying that myth. No one would be against the marriage of a heterosexual person who does not have the ability to procreate or the marriage of a heterosexual on his/her death bed. So how does the LEFT want to define marriage, or rather, how would they have the government define it? The joining of two people? We can't throw love in there, because marriage doesn't always have anything to do with love (thank you, Tina Turner).
I can't really find good logic on either side. My suggestion is why don't you just call it something else and make a legal joining. That should make both sides equally unhappy. I mean, if you're looking for a legally binding relationship that requires a divorce lawyer to break up, I'm sure the government can come up with something. If you're looking for social accpetance, the government can't do that...they aren't the social acceptance police...they just make and enforce laws. If you want to be the same as heterosexual...um...you can't be. There are differences that laws can never bridge. For all that we celebrate our differences, why do homosexuals want to call their relationship the same thing as a different relationship? One of the biggest problems I have with political correctness is that people keep trying to teach people not to notice differences. So yeah...people who are so proud of being different shouldn't try so hard to be the same as everyone else. I think.
So, my question is, what is the definition of marriage? The RIGHT has made it clear that they define it as the joining of one man and one woman (although history would call bigamists married as well). The yahoo article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&e=8&ncid=519) claims that the RIGHT is trying to say that marriage is for the purposes of childbearing and raising, but the LEFT does a very good job of destroying that myth. No one would be against the marriage of a heterosexual person who does not have the ability to procreate or the marriage of a heterosexual on his/her death bed. So how does the LEFT want to define marriage, or rather, how would they have the government define it? The joining of two people? We can't throw love in there, because marriage doesn't always have anything to do with love (thank you, Tina Turner).
I can't really find good logic on either side. My suggestion is why don't you just call it something else and make a legal joining. That should make both sides equally unhappy. I mean, if you're looking for a legally binding relationship that requires a divorce lawyer to break up, I'm sure the government can come up with something. If you're looking for social accpetance, the government can't do that...they aren't the social acceptance police...they just make and enforce laws. If you want to be the same as heterosexual...um...you can't be. There are differences that laws can never bridge. For all that we celebrate our differences, why do homosexuals want to call their relationship the same thing as a different relationship? One of the biggest problems I have with political correctness is that people keep trying to teach people not to notice differences. So yeah...people who are so proud of being different shouldn't try so hard to be the same as everyone else. I think.
# posted by Adam @ 1:58 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hey Adam
Interesting points. I definitely agree with not liking either side's arguments. It was nice to see that spelled out even though it's crossed my mind, too.
The thing I have trouble with, not just with gay marriage, but in general, is this. Christians, and others, believe that homosexuality is a sin, right? But. As Christians, do we vote what we believe Christians should do, or what we believe the rest of America (as a secular country) should do? Because I find that if I separate myself from Christianity's views for a minute, I find no issue with the union of a homosexual couple. I think it will have repercussions that our country is not ready to handle, but I don't think that being legally joined is much of a problem to me. As Christians we realize that God's standards are for everyone...but they don't realize that, and if we keep imposing our standards on non-Christians, I think they will only resent us. If we love them and love each other, we will become something they want to be. Maybe...eventually...
We can hold up standards within our own community, but America is not a Christian nation. Majority, maybe...but it isn't a church state. Well, OK, right now it sort of is, with Bro. Bush in office. So that's where I am split. How do I vote?
Another thing you said was so true...that the government is not around to police social acceptance. That's going to take awhile, no matter how many rights they are given. As Christians we are to love them, but is loving them giving them rights? Is it wrong to let them have rights? I don't think so necessarily...we don't have to agree with someone's choices to let them have rights, do we? What do you think?? Can we love them and judge them at the same time? Is voting "no" for gay rights judging OR loving? Is it really the same as other things? There are few other lifestyle choices that we believe are sinful that most people do not. There are also few that are legal. I have a hard time finding something to compare it to. Anyway-i've rambled enough! See ya!
Interesting points. I definitely agree with not liking either side's arguments. It was nice to see that spelled out even though it's crossed my mind, too.
The thing I have trouble with, not just with gay marriage, but in general, is this. Christians, and others, believe that homosexuality is a sin, right? But. As Christians, do we vote what we believe Christians should do, or what we believe the rest of America (as a secular country) should do? Because I find that if I separate myself from Christianity's views for a minute, I find no issue with the union of a homosexual couple. I think it will have repercussions that our country is not ready to handle, but I don't think that being legally joined is much of a problem to me. As Christians we realize that God's standards are for everyone...but they don't realize that, and if we keep imposing our standards on non-Christians, I think they will only resent us. If we love them and love each other, we will become something they want to be. Maybe...eventually...
We can hold up standards within our own community, but America is not a Christian nation. Majority, maybe...but it isn't a church state. Well, OK, right now it sort of is, with Bro. Bush in office. So that's where I am split. How do I vote?
Another thing you said was so true...that the government is not around to police social acceptance. That's going to take awhile, no matter how many rights they are given. As Christians we are to love them, but is loving them giving them rights? Is it wrong to let them have rights? I don't think so necessarily...we don't have to agree with someone's choices to let them have rights, do we? What do you think?? Can we love them and judge them at the same time? Is voting "no" for gay rights judging OR loving? Is it really the same as other things? There are few other lifestyle choices that we believe are sinful that most people do not. There are also few that are legal. I have a hard time finding something to compare it to. Anyway-i've rambled enough! See ya!
i posted a new entry, but I wanted to respond to one thing you said in the comments, here. I think loving people and voting to condone their sinful life are seperate things. One can hate homosexuality and love the homosexual in the same way that one may hate christianity but love me.
Post a Comment
<< Home
