******
For your consideration, let me present my hard won clarity. You may not agree with me, and that is fine. I have gone the rounds for over a decade. I spent all of my life, until just 2 weeks ago, knowing I was right and those that thought differently were ignorant bigots. Recently, it became increasingly apparent that my political convictions were somehow misaligned with my religious convictions.
Muchness of Cognitive Dissonance.
I could see no good reason to prohibit homosexuals from being married. None. All the arguments from my religious friends, cohorts, mentors were wrong, wrong, wrong. Why pretend successful homosexual relationships don't exist? Why pretend your kids aren't being taught about it at school now, if not by the teachers, then by stupid kids calling each other gay. Why deny people, who clearly love each other, the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones the way the law protects me and my husband - we are a unit. Denying gay couples the right to be married was WRONG.
But then the Prophet of my beloved church, which has illuminuted for me so much Truth, as far as my Faith in God, my belief in personal revelation, the purpose of life, and my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ - the prophet told the members in California to support Proposition 8.
Oh the rationalization that went on in Brandy's little brain: perhaps he's not speaking as a prophet, but expressing his opinion as a person; perhaps that this the right policy for now, but, like blacks and the priesthood, time would change things - when the people are ready to receive more prophecy, we'll get the revelation; perhaps he is a product of an old fashioned environment and he doesn't understand that he is being very UNChristian to a whole bunch of God's children. And how could so many of my fellow members just blindly give money and time to such a clearly BAD thing? Were they blind little sheep who couldn't be bothered to think for themselves, who just hear the prophet and jump to action (oh that I were wise enough to be so blind)?
But, I KNOW the prophet is a man called of God to lead and direct the church. His stewardship includes the whole wide world. This is where I may lose some of you, but you need to know that I truly believe God calls men to be prophets to teach Truth to those willing to listen. I'm not saying it is limited to LDS prophets or prophets of the Judeo-Christian flavor; the vast and overwhelming majority of human beings believe in a higher power, by one name or another, some source of Truth. How does one tell a true prophet from a wacko? I believe an individual has the right to receive confirmation from God. I believe it with all my heart.
Search, Ponder, and Pray as I might, I got no confirmation that the prophet was wrong, that new revelation was pending, or that I was bad for not falling in line.
So, thus all the blogging about Gay Marriage. Something just would not fit.
Most important bit of the Bible:
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, atempting him, and saying,
This is the first and great acommandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the alaw and the prophets.
We have with in us the capacity to love all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, anything. It's not so hard - look at any baby (mine is especially cute and sweet and easy to love, not to mention tricky to type with). For a gay person to say he/she CAN'T love a person of the opposite gender is as absurd as a heterosexual saying they could only love the opposite. We love lots of people, we don't ask to marry them all. Love is not the primary ingredient for marriage.
Can we agree on that? Will you concede that point? If not, speak now or forever hold your peace.
I know, English is not the most effective language with which to speak of love. Switch to Greek. Eros is what you feel early in the relationship, probably mostly what I felt for my husband for the first couple of years of marriage. I think we all probably have our own male/bi/female scale for eros-attraction. Some people are grossed out by the thought of a same-gender relatioship; if not bound by societal and religous conventions, I could probably swing either way. We only know how we feel and, clearly, not everyone feels drawn the same way, eros-wise. Eros feelings are not the best to follow to the alter; eros has a funny way of going away.
So, Brandy, expert on love, is it agape ("a total commitment or self-sacrificial love for the thing loved"), then, that we must feel for another to consider them for marriage? That isn't limited to opposite gender, y'know.
Right. Ok. Here is my contention.
1. There are two kinds of people in this big wide world, just two (not counting rare genetic mutations) - Male and Female. We build relationships with members of both kind. For most of us, it is easier to form friendships (we're talking philia here now) with one or the other, typically though, with members of our same gender. We tend to understand each other better. The similarities as preferred by and defined by gender make it easier to have love and compassion for members of the same gender. Nevertheless, we love both kinds.
2. Nature and culture have developed various ways of getting us to perpetuate the species. However, "perpetuate the species" isn't what you call it until around 30. Before then, it's pretty much just a desire to get your rocks off, no? There are various ways to accomplish this, one of which has the added bonus of making a baby. Only one, though. Male and female. Not to belittle the agape felt between any other coupling, nor to exaggerate the importance of reproductive capacity. and yet ...
3. There is something unique and special about the joining of opposites. (Here is where I invoke God.) Marriage is not just two people who eros or agape each other, who are commited to always putting the other's happiness and well-being first. Marriage is intended to be an institution in which a man and a woman make the commitment primarily to GOD, secondarily to each other. The commitment isn't so much to or for each other - it's a covenent with God to take care of those spirits he may bless you with as children.
It's Abraham taking Isaac to be sacrificed, completely willing to do whatever God requires, until the last moment where God spares him. It's Jesus at Gethsemene saying Thy will be done and being crusified. It's me, promising God that I will take care of His son, my husband, so he can be a good dad to our kids and Greg promising vera visa. The creative unit is man, woman, and God.
The covenent, the sacrement, the sacrifice, is specificly designated this way by God and I will vote to protect it.
Though I don't think government should have a say in my religious conviction.
What government needs to do is give the people what we want, which is a reletively easy way to legally combine assets and medical authority and clarify rights of guardianship if minors are involved and stop trying to legistlate morality, one way or another, they are not very good at it anyway (moral amendments, pshaw). Clergy needs to stop marrying every couple who thinks love is enough. Duties and obligations need to be met. There can not be a no-fault divorce. There needs to be civil unions and disolution of civil unions based upon breach of prenuptual contract.
We have with in us the capacity to love all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, anything. It's not so hard - look at any baby (mine is especially cute and sweet and easy to love, not to mention tricky to type with). For a gay person to say he/she CAN'T love a person of the opposite gender is as absurd as a heterosexual saying they could only love the opposite. We love lots of people, we don't ask to marry them all. Love is not the primary ingredient for marriage.
Can we agree on that? Will you concede that point? If not, speak now or forever hold your peace.
I know, English is not the most effective language with which to speak of love. Switch to Greek. Eros is what you feel early in the relationship, probably mostly what I felt for my husband for the first couple of years of marriage. I think we all probably have our own male/bi/female scale for eros-attraction. Some people are grossed out by the thought of a same-gender relatioship; if not bound by societal and religous conventions, I could probably swing either way. We only know how we feel and, clearly, not everyone feels drawn the same way, eros-wise. Eros feelings are not the best to follow to the alter; eros has a funny way of going away.
So, Brandy, expert on love, is it agape ("a total commitment or self-sacrificial love for the thing loved"), then, that we must feel for another to consider them for marriage? That isn't limited to opposite gender, y'know.
Right. Ok. Here is my contention.
1. There are two kinds of people in this big wide world, just two (not counting rare genetic mutations) - Male and Female. We build relationships with members of both kind. For most of us, it is easier to form friendships (we're talking philia here now) with one or the other, typically though, with members of our same gender. We tend to understand each other better. The similarities as preferred by and defined by gender make it easier to have love and compassion for members of the same gender. Nevertheless, we love both kinds.
2. Nature and culture have developed various ways of getting us to perpetuate the species. However, "perpetuate the species" isn't what you call it until around 30. Before then, it's pretty much just a desire to get your rocks off, no? There are various ways to accomplish this, one of which has the added bonus of making a baby. Only one, though. Male and female. Not to belittle the agape felt between any other coupling, nor to exaggerate the importance of reproductive capacity. and yet ...
3. There is something unique and special about the joining of opposites. (Here is where I invoke God.) Marriage is not just two people who eros or agape each other, who are commited to always putting the other's happiness and well-being first. Marriage is intended to be an institution in which a man and a woman make the commitment primarily to GOD, secondarily to each other. The commitment isn't so much to or for each other - it's a covenent with God to take care of those spirits he may bless you with as children.
It's Abraham taking Isaac to be sacrificed, completely willing to do whatever God requires, until the last moment where God spares him. It's Jesus at Gethsemene saying Thy will be done and being crusified. It's me, promising God that I will take care of His son, my husband, so he can be a good dad to our kids and Greg promising vera visa. The creative unit is man, woman, and God.
The covenent, the sacrement, the sacrifice, is specificly designated this way by God and I will vote to protect it.
Though I don't think government should have a say in my religious conviction.
What government needs to do is give the people what we want, which is a reletively easy way to legally combine assets and medical authority and clarify rights of guardianship if minors are involved and stop trying to legistlate morality, one way or another, they are not very good at it anyway (moral amendments, pshaw). Clergy needs to stop marrying every couple who thinks love is enough. Duties and obligations need to be met. There can not be a no-fault divorce. There needs to be civil unions and disolution of civil unions based upon breach of prenuptual contract.
34 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
Your last paragraph- brilliant! I am in total agreement with you. The rest of our differences are truly doctrinal and, hallelua, we live in America where religious freedom is specifically preserved in our constitution. I see a deep doctinal difference in the belief that marriage is solely about the creation and protection of children. I also strongly disagree with the implied statement that homesexual relationships never get past the eros stage of love. You did a very good job getting your beliefs across.
No, there are plenty of homosexual relationships that fulfill all the various definitions of love, just not the definition of marriage.
I hate making typing mistakes. Here I go again...
A very thoughtful entry. Can we call attention to this entry of yours on The Opine Editorials? It is a blog focusing on marriage and family issues, especially relating to law.
I'm asking for permission because it might bring a lot of of traffic to your blog, some of it from people who are really upset that not everyone supports courts neutering state marriage licensing.
Some people don't want that much attention. So if you are okay with it, I will quote you and link to you. But if you aren't, I'll refrain (though I think you do an excellent job).
Playful Walrus - thank you and please feel free to shine a light over here ... I'll try to respectfully weather any comments and differences of opinion.
If there is something special about the joining of opposites, perhaps you should be married to an accepting person.
Maybe we should get rid of all legal marriages, make them all civil unions and leave marriage to the religions. Your church can continue to discriminate, my synagogue can continue to treat people well.
THAT'S what I'm saying baby!!! Now, let's go legislate.
I really appreciate that you attempted to write this in a non-inflammatory way, especially given that for the most part I am horrified by the very concept of this post.
Not to mention your invoking the use of LDS and while they claim not to anymore, clearly have supported polygamist marriages and what could be more blasphemous than that very concept?
In this world there are plenty of people providing solid, stable, and emotionally positive environments for children regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.
It does not take a marriage to create a family or provide a good environment for raising children and for that matter, regardless of spiritual beliefs (including my own) it certainly doesn't take a bible, church, or any other man-made organization to create two partners (of any sex) who are mutually respectful and supportive of one another.
I might suggest that if it takes the fear of hellfire and brimstone and a promise made in front of friends and family (and God) to make you fulfill a commitment to another human being - then there might be something to seriously question about that commitment.
There are many human beings out in the world who fulfill that commitment daily based on a deep respect and mutual affection for their partner and not because they fear spiritual consequences.
The fact is, if this is your definition of marriage, than it defines YOUR marriage and good for you. But, the people who want to go around and define marriage for the rest of us are overstepping their boundaries and likewise would be horrifically offended were someone to decide to define any portion of their lives in the same sort of manner.
There is supposed to be a separation of church and state for a reason. Biblical verses have no role in law or constitutional rights.
What goes on between two consenting adults is absolutely none of anyone's business, not any church, certainly not the government. My (or anyone else's) hereafter is my own problem and no one will have to deal with whatever happens then, but me.
That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph and wish that there were more people who honestly felt that way regardless of what their spiritual beliefs say.
Respectfully, yes, this is my definition, but also the majority of voting Americans and the reason gay marriages are not legal.
Look, the law doesn't prohibit loving commitments - it prevents gay marriage. Consenting adults CAN do whatever they please, but homosexuals are looking for legal protection, the majority refuses to call their commitment "marriage" (it's not just MY definition, its the traditionally accepting meaning of the word). You can keep fighting about a word or work towards a solution.
SO, what's most important, equal legal protection of the relationship or expanding the definition of an old rusty word?
Well, I have to wonder, if it's an old, rusty word, as you put it, than why should you or anyone else care that it evolve to encompass all consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation?
Why do you or any other organization have the right to be so exclusionary? I mean, it's pretty nasty just in a certain regard to claim that you have something special in your "marriage" that any other couple isn't allowed to share?
This is really very simple, if you are over the age of 18 and able to legally consent then you should be allowed to obtain a marriage license and marry another adult who is able to legally consent as well.
That would easily provide the same legal protection that the rest of us heterosexual couples take for granted.
But, no, to me there is no better way to over complicate this then by saying, "You can have a marriage and YOU can have a civil union.
Dare I say, there is almost something sinister about saying, "I have something wonderful and special, but you can't have this label for what YOU have... you can just call it a civil union."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
I don't see where this says:
...unless you are gay and want to be happily married.
and, what I should point out here is that our Constitution says that "all MEN..." are created equal and that certainly (in the past) has left room for women to be unable to vote or own property, and baby, look at us now. Some people even claim that the bible indicates women aren't equal to men or cannot hold the same rights and value as men, but we aren't running by those rules, are we?
(I apologize for posting two comments in a row!)
Again - we don't come to a unanimous consensus, the majority sets limits of freedom. Any consenting adults? Multiple consenting adults? Related consenting adults? DO you have any limits? If not, then what IS marriage?
I'm not saying separate, but equal, I'm saying separation church and state.
What are the other feasible options to resolve this? What can both sides come together with? Rare is the person who can change their mind on this or any other moral/political issue - one is usually taught to pray before they pledge allegiance. Is there no room for compromise?
that's why i write that i think the state needs to be out of the marriage business. i do not deserve to be legally married more than anyone else, so i should not be given that label if someone else is denied it. however, prop 8 DOES try to define marriage legally, and it is the wrong direction. ALL marriage should be abolished except within religious institutions.
but, do you think your church would agree to that?
Yes, I do.
(but I could be wrong, I don't speak for the church, we could ask him ... see what he says. What does the gay community say?)
I'm part of a Christian Church in town that accepts gays..."open and affirming" (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH).
What about us? Our Christian Pastor would marry us if the feds allowed.
BTW - It should NOT be a state issue! Families with and without children should NOT be legally-imprisoned by their state's borders.
Thanks, Mrs. B.
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/02/the_case_for_prop_8.thtml
John, I think I agree that this issue extends beyond state boundaries. Perhaps the states would be willing to ratify some sort of an amendment regarding civil unions for all couples and that could be the extent of the government's involvement.
Then, yes, your pastor, if willing, could officiate in any marriage arrangement he deems appropriate. I could never support someone taking legal action against a church for refusing to marry them, but you know what would be really awesome, to see what people would do if a gay civil union couple came to an LDS church every Sunday ... that'd be a good test of Christianity, no?
OK, Brandy, I have remained silent on this one...you know I commented extensively on the previous debate(s).
I have one comment, one suggestion, and one question.
I will start with the comment:
1) OK this isn't quite a comment, more of a question. There are thousands, if not millions of gay people who are married and who procreate within those marriages before they are able to come out (for whatever reason).....hey look at the governor of New Jersey. So what about them? How do their marriages fit within this schema? AND What about the heterosexual people who get married for convenience, money, etc., etc. AND what about that woman with those octuplets....how can she be allowed to procreate at will? Surely THAT cannot be good for children?! I was really looking for your comments on that one, especially since she says she's going to BF them all (seriously, does she have like 8 teats?)
2) My suggestion: If you haven't already seen it, I recommend getting If These Walls Could Talk 2 from Netflix. It's not the greatest of movies, but the opening story is amazing.
3) my question: Have you ever attended a pride celebration or parade? If not, I highly recommend it. It was completely routine for me to go to the one in Chicago when I was a child with my aunts and uncle (my uncle is gay), and I think it is an excellent experience....
Baby O - Burley, Idaho, 1994 (I think) - my daddy organized a gay rights celebration in Burley, ID - 12 people, including me, in attendance - very good experience, though windy.
I wish Ms. Octuplet's children the best of luck. I personally think it is irresponsible to birth more children than you can afford to care for, I think the doctors involved were also irresponsible. And yet, here in America, it's all about what adults want, donchaknow? You and I both know, kids usually turn our okay, despite the crazy thing inflicted upon us by our parents.
so, because you believe that someone is a prophet and you accept his call for bigotry, marriage has to become a purely religious institution? States would need to ratify laws in order to accept marriages from other states, some churches would be okay with gay marriage, others not, civil unions would have to replace marriage for all of us who aren't interested in a religion sanctioned commitment? All for what you call a 'rusty old word'? Let's make it simpler - your beliefs are yours, leave me to mine.
You want separation of church and state? I do too, and I am not going to have a religion define what I do in my life. It seems to me that no church should be injecting millions into a governmental, political campaign - not without losing tax exemption.{that's separation of church and state}
What if your prophet receives the word of your god {not mine and many others} that what the rest of us are doing is not for you to legislate, campaign against or judge? When did one of your prophets change the church's doctrine on African Americans in the church/priesthood or change the church's stance on polygamy? These words from on high came at the hour of being politically necessary. But I suppose until that happens, it is just fine to discriminate.
shame.
If it was up to people like you and those in your church, my niece and her partner would not be able to hold jobs, much less adopt. Too bad they can't legally be married. I will continue to fight to see that someday they can.
Thanks anonymous, always good to hear from you, old pal.
If it were up to ME, your niece (and me and everyone else) would have a civil union from the government granting us all equal rights and protection. We would be able to make marriage vows in any obliging house of worship, if we so desired.
Your niece and her significant other would have to pass the basic background checks, but, assuming they're financially equipped and not child abusers, could most certainly adopt because there are thousands if not millions of children, especially older children, who need stability and love. Sure I think a traditional mom/dad marriage would be better for them, but love and stability is better than neglect and abuse, where ever it comes from.
And I'm not sure what you mean about holding jobs ... I'm pretty much as anti-gay discrimination as you can get, so, respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly read one post and formed your opinion. My blog is full of detailed explanations concerning my political opinions (to which I am entitled, even if they are not compatible with yours) and you jumped to conclusions before understanding the situation.
"Fight?" I'm gonna work on loving and understanding ... but whatever makes YOU happy.
Great gravy, I love Anonymous.
Mrs. Roth, you've done an excellent job of being open-minded and non-inflammatory about an issue that stirs deep emotions. Thank you. There should be more people like you, who see their political opponents as people who disagree, not adversaries or children of hell.
Re: holding jobs...
Title 7: Equal Employment. This prevents employers from discriminating based on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
At the federal level, it is 100% legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-discrimination-harassment/civil-rights-title-7.html
"Marriage, Undefined"
In my personal opinion, changing or perhaps more accurately defining the meaning of the word "marriage" is not the primary concern of the gay rights movement at this time. It is purely a civil rights issue.
One of the goals of making gay marriage legal (or rather, preventing gender from entering into the legal definition of marriage at all) is to obtain the same rights for all people when they enter into the institution of marriage.
These rights, though they vary from state to state, often include joint custody and adoption of children, visitation rights in cases of divorce, health and life insurance, shared property, inheritances of estates, determination of medical and end of life care, etc.
It is also about preventing the government from dictating the morality or immorality of a person's personal convictions, beliefs, and life-style. This part of the issue is extremely similar to the determination that church and state should be separate.
Thirdly, it is to protect minorities AGAINST the popular vote. That is why putting an issue like this that involves protecting minority rights to a public vote is ludicrous. It is also completely against the spirit of the American constitution which is supposed to grant rights equally to all of our citizens regardless of ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.
Regardless of whether or not the majority of voters believe that homosexuality is wrong, or that homosexual marriages or trans-gender marriages are wrong, the rights of gay people still need to be protected and upheld.
That is why our country was meant to be a Republic Democracy, not a true Democracy where the popular vote decides every legal issue, although too often it seems it still does. We need only look back over our own history to see how minorities have been denied constitutional rights for years due to the "popular vote" or popular opinion.
Let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of Americans at one point strongly believed that people who were not white were not only less than human, but were even lower than animals. Even after slavery ended black people were considered to be only 3/5 of a person for years.
Women were also considered to be less than men by the "popular vote". Even mentally retarded people were considered less than human and denied rights for many years.
My point is that the popular vote cannot be used to justify the mistreatment of minority groups. For instance, imagine for a minute if the tables were turned. What if the majority of people in this country were gay? What if they wanted to define marriage as solely a union between two people of the same gender. Would that make it right?
Of course not!! This issue is not about which view is right and which is wrong, it is about allowing everyone the same protection under the law and preventing the popular opinion from denying a minority group a fundamental human experience to which they are entitled.
And now, more on the so called "definition" of marriage:
The reason it is so difficult for the public as a whole as well as the government or any society for that matter to define the meaning of the institution of marriage and who may enter into it, is because it means so many different things to different people.
To some people, like the author of this blog, it is solely a covenant between a man, woman, and God for the sole purpose of procreation. That is a perfectly fine definition for marriage and I support the right to believe in it.
However, that does not give anyone the right to force that definition on other people who may have a completely different view of marriage.
To illustrate my point, for many other people marriage may be a union for political or social or economic reasons. To others it is a union solely based on love and dedication. Many definitions of marriage do not include any religious connotation or any views on procreation.
Many loving couples are married with no intention of ever having children. Likewise, many gay couples who are not allowed to be married are excellent parents.
So, to determine the legal definition of marriage solely based on your own views without considering the views of others is narrow-minded, judgemental, condescending, and insulting.
You do not have the justification (constitutionally OR religiously) to force your beliefs on other people. They can determine for themselves whether they are ready to enter into marriage, for whatever reason. It is not your place, or the place of the government to decide.
You may be able to define it for yourself, and that is fine. Your marriage will always exist within those confines. But do not seek to restrict the rights and lives of others based on your personal opinion.
Two gay people marrying each other does not in any way change your definition of marriage or the covenant that you took. Likewise, you do not have the right to change or restrict the institution for everyone or anyone else.
Do not presume to do so.
caitlin. you are awesome.
I often like to respond personally, directly to comments via email. If you're interested, here is the email I sent Caitlin in response to her comments:
I appreciate your very long and well thought out comments. But I disagree. I am not a narrow minded, condescending jerk. I make a distinction based on what I feel is best for children. I am not seeking to change anyone's opinion regarding a definition of marriage - I only sought to clarify my definition, my reasoning, essentially, my marriage. Marriage is something unique to each couple who enter there in, but to tease out the most important aspect of marriage - it doesn't matter who you love, who you make love to or how - children have a RIGHT to be raised in a stable loving environment by a mother and father who love them. I get that life isn't ideal, but that doesn't mean we don't strive towards an ideal. Marriage is NOT for two adults (or more) to stand up and proclaim their warm happy feelings for one another. The problem THE BIGGEST PROBLEM with our society is we have forgotten that we must put the well being of our children before our selfish wants and desires.
Caitlin, I don't think you and I have much in common politically - I don't know you or where your coming from - but I have thought this through, I have examined it inside and out, from top to bottom, both sides. I vote for the strictest of definitions for marriage and I hold it sacred. I would outlaw Vegas quickie weddings and divorces, no-fault divorces, unage marriages ... let consenting adults do what they will to and with each other, but marriage should be taken more seriously, and with the purpose and dedication to the rearing of children.
With that in mind, adults, any adults, any amount of adults SHOULD be free to enter into a contract combining their assets, their lives, and that is where the state gets involved - I think we desperately need to enact a federally issued, all-states recognized civil union for all ALL ALL adults wanting to join their lives, regardless of intent or duration.
This is where I firmly stand.
Always,
B
I especially love this part: "Though I don't think government should have a say in my religious conviction."
You say that at the same time you're saying your religious conviction has a place in the life of every Californian. I can't tell you how angry I get when I read things like that.
My government doesn't belong in my church, and my church doesn't belong in my government. Period.
Look, I'm not trying to fight or argue or change minds, here, I am trying to find the compromise that works. If this post is the only one of mine you ever read, you have a very flat, inaccurate perception of me. The only way to keep church and state separate where marriage is involved to to kick the government out completely and have a universal federal civil union.
We will never be able to kick religion out of marriage. Be realistic. Please. To protect homosexuals from discrimination, to give heterosexuals a chance to grow and understand and love what seems evil, but truly is just different, but exactly the same ... Why? Why not!
Will someone FREAKING ANSWER ME?!
Hey look! I'm commenting on this!
So are you saying that only people who intend to procreate should have the right to marry?
nope - After extremely careful analysis into the purpose of marriage, the conclusion my conclusion is that the purpose of marriage is not to proclaim your love but to establish a legal and emotional underpinning for the rearing of children. Two consenting adults can do what they'd like to each other and call their relationship Slap Happy Sam for all I care. We've gotten to a point in society where people are obsessed with rights - it's my right to do whatever makes me happy, dammit. Kids don't know they have rights, few adults seem to recognize or respect the rights of children. But children have a right to be raised by loving parents in a safe and stable home. That should be unalienable. Two people having sex aren't usually thinking about the result, but once that life has been created, mom and dad's rights SHOULD take a back seat. Marriage is an easy way to link children to those who have legal and moral responsibility for their well-being.
I'm not talking marriage historically, I'm not talking public expression of love, I am strictly seeking to legally protect our investments in the future (I believe that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way.)
NOW. Homosexual people have kids, I understand that. I would contend that a balanced and stable mom and dad family is ideal, but all the research I've read shows that children do no better or worse in a gay home. The sticking point come from the group in power, the majority, not being willing to "share the wealth," not willing to extend the word marriage to include same-sex couples. I can't change that. The California State Supreme Court decided not to. But homosexual couples and their children should still have their rights protected, right?
So what can we do? How can we protect the rights of children? We can establish a Universal Federal Civil Union. We allow all couples (or groups?) to enter into that contract. If they have no children, fine, their assets and powers of attorny are protected. They live happily ever after and die. If they choose to include children in the home, we write into the federal civil union the rights of children, born or adopted, and how parents are obligated to fulfill their duties. A civil union can be a more serious contract than the current marriage license. We can end the practice of quickie marriages and no-fault divorces. We can make the decision to unite with someone mean more. It means everything. Then marriage will be less important to those who never took it seriously in the first place, and can continue to mean something to those who always have.
Vote for me.
Dear Mrs. B,
I admire your desire to make sure all children are raised in a stable, loving environment.
However, I do not think that the purpose of marriage is (for everyone) solely to have and raise children. That is your purpose and reason for being married and that is perfectly fine and as I said before, admirable. But that doesn't mean that it is the purpose of marriage for everyone else, or that it should be forced on other people by being enacted into law.
You said in your response that the purpose of this blog was not to force your opinions on other people. You are right, that wasn't the purpose of your blog.
That was the purpose of your VOTE.
I also do not understand how you can say in once sentence that you believe that gay marriage should be banned in order to protect the healthy upbringing of children while in the next paragraph admit that many gay couples raise perfectly happy families.
I'm sorry, but regardless of our differences in opinion, you must admit that from a debate standpoint, those statements are in contradiction to one another. Thus, your point becomes a logical fallacy.
To illustrate: Even if, as you wish it to be, the purpose of marriage is to raise healthy, happy, stable children... if gay couples are able to accomplish this, then.... what's the problem? By your own reasoning there shouldn't be an issue with gay couples marrying if that is the case.
Being a married straight couple with children does not mean you are capable of being a good parent, just as being a gay married couple doesn't mean you aren't. It has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation. It has to do with how healthy your relationship is, how much you love each other and your children, etc.
You said you don't know where I am coming from on this issue. Well, I will tell you.
As you could probably guess from my name, I am a woman. I am in love with a man. We have a healthy, stable relationship and will eventually be married because we love each other. I would like to have children and I know I would be an excellent mother since I helped raise my own sisters, but that will not be the sole purpose of my marriage.
I have never been in any sort of relationship with a woman, but when I think about the idea, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't look at people based on their gender or age or race, I look at them based on who they are inside.
So, I would like to think that if I had met a woman with the same personality as my boyfriend, I would have fallen in love with her just as deeply as I did with the man I met. I would still want to be married, and we would still raise children, and I would still be an excellent mother.
And if someone told me I could not be married to this person that I love more than any other, that I could not raise healthy children in a stable environment, just because we were the same gender... Then I think I would be really, really angry and insulted.
And if someone told me that I could have a "civil union" instead of a marriage, that bestowed all the same rights as a marriage but just wasn't called a marriage because I'm gay... then I would be
a little more than angry. I'd be
enraged.
I would be just as insulted as if someone told me that because I am 1/4 African American I could only have a "civil union" with my white boyfriend instead of a marriage since only same-ethnicity couples can raise children in healthy, happy environments.
Sounds kind of crazy when you put it in a racial context now doesn't it? But it really is the same thing. I don't think you mean it to sound the same, but coming from an outside viewpoint, it really does sound exactly as discriminatory.
The only reason to reserve marriages for straight couples if civil unions are in practice the same thing, is to make a point that straight couples are morally better than homosexual couples.
You can verbally (or typographically) deny thinking that all you want, and you can deny that you tried to force your definition of marriage on other people. But by suggesting this division between marriages and civil unions on sexual orientation grounds and/or religious grounds, that is exactly what you are implying.
Post a Comment