I have been debating whether to post my opinion on Facebook regarding "same sex marriage". I decided my post would be too long for that venue so I am posting here instead. I am still treading lightly not for the sake of not offending someone, I have no problem doing that. I am doing so because if I am not careful this post would be about the size of "War and Peace". I am additionally taking my Christian beliefs out of the discussion, again not not because I am concerned about offending but to take a lightening rod item out of the argument and to keep the post shorter.
First, is the semantics of the discussion. In my first sentence I put "same sex marriage" in quotes because on the most basic level that is what the argument is about, changing the definition of marriage.
The plain, simple and to the point definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It is NOT the union between two people. It is NOT the union between a man and a man. It is NOT the union between a woman and a woman. It IS the union between a man and a woman.
One of the two arguments before the Supreme Court is over California's Proposition 8. The arguments of the opponents of Prop 8, supporters of "gay marriage", include that by not allowing homosexuals to marry they are being denied rights that are conferred to married straight couples. The only problem with this argument is that this is a 40 year old argument that is almost a totally moot point in this day and time, even more so in California. The rights of any couple in a relationship are protected. No longer are there limits in the areas where at one time a married couple had one set of rules and a homosexual couple had another set. Even when there are differences they can be overcome with legal documents; for example, hospital directives.
No, a union between a couple of the same sex, by definition is not marriage.
My second point is about the use of the term "civil rights". In other words, that "gay marriage" is a civil right. Many of the Hollywood types are saying that "gay marriage" is on the same level as the black civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's. I even heard it compared to the women's suffrage movement. There is one huge problem with this comparison. People that are black have no choice about whether or not they are black. Women have no choice as to whether they are a woman. They have civil rights simply because they are humans on this planet and they have basic civil rights that cannot be infringed upon simply because of their skin color or sex. Gay people have a choice as to whether or not they get involved in a committed relationship of whatever degree. I am not afforded anymore rights as a straight man over whether I can be involved in a relationship than a gay man. While going back to my first point, by definition, my relationship can develop into a marriage, a gay man (or woman) can enter into a committed relationship with all of the same benefits except the title of marriage. It is NOT a civil right.
For my third and final point for this discussion, I have to admit that Rush Limbaugh stole some of my thunder by discussing it on his show today. If we go about changing the definition of marriage, where do we stop. One of the arguments by supporters of "gay marriage" is that we should not stop a committed and loving couple from getting married. But why stop stop there and who says it will stop there. Where is the line? What happens if one of the members of the couple is a minor? Why should we stop a committed and loving couple from being together so the argument goes. What about polygamy? What if 3 people love each other and what to get "married"? Why should we stop them? After all, it is their "civil right"? What if a whole group of people want to live in a loving and committed relationship, something similar to the hippie communes of the 60's. Who are we to stop them from getting married as a group?
I could go on and be even more graphic and deviant but I think you get the idea.
I am confused by the liberal mind. They don't want straight couples to get married. They encourage the spurning of the formality of marriage between a man and a woman but they demand that a man and a man or a woman and a woman be allowed to join together in marriage. They glorify single parenthood but talk about how great it is for children to be adopted by a gay couple.
As I said, there is so much more that I could go on when speaking on this topic. I tried to keep this simple and I may even come off as simplistic. If so, oh well. If I offended you, good. You probably needed to be offended. You may disagree. I have no problem with that. You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine.
As always, I encourage comments. As a reminder since this is such a sensitive topic, I ask that you remain respectful. I reserve the right to review all and delete any I feel are inappropriate. Profanity will not be tolerated. If you do not like those rules, deal with it or start your own blog where you make the rules.
As always, SMILE.
Eddy
First, is the semantics of the discussion. In my first sentence I put "same sex marriage" in quotes because on the most basic level that is what the argument is about, changing the definition of marriage.
The plain, simple and to the point definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It is NOT the union between two people. It is NOT the union between a man and a man. It is NOT the union between a woman and a woman. It IS the union between a man and a woman.
One of the two arguments before the Supreme Court is over California's Proposition 8. The arguments of the opponents of Prop 8, supporters of "gay marriage", include that by not allowing homosexuals to marry they are being denied rights that are conferred to married straight couples. The only problem with this argument is that this is a 40 year old argument that is almost a totally moot point in this day and time, even more so in California. The rights of any couple in a relationship are protected. No longer are there limits in the areas where at one time a married couple had one set of rules and a homosexual couple had another set. Even when there are differences they can be overcome with legal documents; for example, hospital directives.
No, a union between a couple of the same sex, by definition is not marriage.
My second point is about the use of the term "civil rights". In other words, that "gay marriage" is a civil right. Many of the Hollywood types are saying that "gay marriage" is on the same level as the black civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's. I even heard it compared to the women's suffrage movement. There is one huge problem with this comparison. People that are black have no choice about whether or not they are black. Women have no choice as to whether they are a woman. They have civil rights simply because they are humans on this planet and they have basic civil rights that cannot be infringed upon simply because of their skin color or sex. Gay people have a choice as to whether or not they get involved in a committed relationship of whatever degree. I am not afforded anymore rights as a straight man over whether I can be involved in a relationship than a gay man. While going back to my first point, by definition, my relationship can develop into a marriage, a gay man (or woman) can enter into a committed relationship with all of the same benefits except the title of marriage. It is NOT a civil right.
For my third and final point for this discussion, I have to admit that Rush Limbaugh stole some of my thunder by discussing it on his show today. If we go about changing the definition of marriage, where do we stop. One of the arguments by supporters of "gay marriage" is that we should not stop a committed and loving couple from getting married. But why stop stop there and who says it will stop there. Where is the line? What happens if one of the members of the couple is a minor? Why should we stop a committed and loving couple from being together so the argument goes. What about polygamy? What if 3 people love each other and what to get "married"? Why should we stop them? After all, it is their "civil right"? What if a whole group of people want to live in a loving and committed relationship, something similar to the hippie communes of the 60's. Who are we to stop them from getting married as a group?
I could go on and be even more graphic and deviant but I think you get the idea.
I am confused by the liberal mind. They don't want straight couples to get married. They encourage the spurning of the formality of marriage between a man and a woman but they demand that a man and a man or a woman and a woman be allowed to join together in marriage. They glorify single parenthood but talk about how great it is for children to be adopted by a gay couple.
As I said, there is so much more that I could go on when speaking on this topic. I tried to keep this simple and I may even come off as simplistic. If so, oh well. If I offended you, good. You probably needed to be offended. You may disagree. I have no problem with that. You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine.
As always, I encourage comments. As a reminder since this is such a sensitive topic, I ask that you remain respectful. I reserve the right to review all and delete any I feel are inappropriate. Profanity will not be tolerated. If you do not like those rules, deal with it or start your own blog where you make the rules.
As always, SMILE.
Eddy
©2013 Eddy Seegers
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment