I admit I'm mostly uninformed. Yet I still feel like I have some things to say about the topic of gay marriage that I don't hear stated very often.
First of all, I don't think it's okay to practice homosexual activity, and even if genetic influences are involved there is still choice in the activities a person participates in. But this isn't about whether or not laws should stop people from immoral behavior. After all, I think it's immoral to have extramarital sex, but that is pervasive and unpunished in our society. So it's important to point out that if marriage keeps its current meaning (i.e. no gay marriage) that does not preclude anyone from behaving how they wish.
The gay marriage argument seems to lump a bunch of issues into one. Supposedly this is about rights that are affected by marriage status. I don't know what all the rights are for families (even though I am married and have children). Two come to my mind. Tax breaks (for kids) and adoption. Let's assume there are many others. By redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, we uniformly remove all discriminating between the two in all cases (I purposely used the word "discrimination" to bother those who think it's a bad word). I think each case and right should be handled individually. Not only does the gay marriage movement try to change a large clump of legal implications all at once, reaching as far as public education, without specifically addressing what the effects will be, but it also tries to remove the possibility of ever distinguishing between the types of "marriage" in the future.
For example, I'm told that gay couples can currently adopt children, at least in some states, even without gay marriage. This is an issue for many people, and certainly some adoption agencies would not like to be involved in this. However, if gay marriage is legal, this issue becomes void. Agencies that don't want to be involved in giving adoptions to gay couples will face law suits. This has already happened in states where gay marriage is legal. So that's one important issue that's carried in the basket of gay marriage.
It's hard to justify the governments current support of families (I'm not one that likes to look at empirical data involving social behavior and make a case out of it). This is a form of discrimination they we as a society have decided to embrace, thank goodness. Gay unions should be classified as a separate entity, with their own set of rights and privileges established. By legally lumping in these new types of marriage into the marriage category we are diluting our traditional support of families. It seems that the gay marriage proponents carefully avoid talking about two important observations. One---gay marriage brings with it much more than the ability to live together and love. Two---the same arguments about rights and discrimination that are used in favor of gay marriage could also be used to add a variety of other arrangements into the category of marriage or remove the legal status of marriage all together. If that were directly proposed, it would be swiftly defeated. When logic leads to inconsistency or undesired conclusions, you have to question the premise.
My mother went to graduate school for a degree in teaching while she was raising four children. If I remember correctly, we had free "family" passes to the swimming pool for a while. Then the university decided not to discriminate against unmarried couples, so the "family" benefits were extended to a larger group of people, such as "partners." In the end, we no longer could swim for free. Let me restate that: The family privileges were extended to everyone. How generous of them.
In honesty, I realize that my argument for a separate category (like "unions") could be turned against me. Why not say that marriages between people of different races should be in a separate category as well? There was a point in history when this might have gained approval. I don't have a good answer for that. They just seem like fundamentally different issues, rooted as deeply as biology itself.
On top of everything I've said, I don't want the government to dictate that my children must be taught that being gay is perfectly acceptable. It's not hard to see that this is going there and beyond. I can teach my children on my own to love and accept people regardless of their choices.
3 comments:
Excellent post Paul. I can't add much insight to what you said. I think your "pool" example is very illustrative of how rigths and privileges will be taken away from traditional marriages as a result of this.
Paul and I exchanged emails prior to this posting. Here was my response to some of his comments.
"Not only does the gay marriage movement try to change a large clump of legal implications all at once, reaching as far as public education, without specifically addressing what the effects will be, but it also tries to remove the possibility of ever distinguishing between the types of "marriage" in the future."
This strategy is a staple in the arsenal of corrupt far left liberal agendas. They love making sweeping, illogical generalities, lumping together complex issues and burying nay-sayers in knee-jerk, emotionally-charged public reaction.
"For example, I'm told that gay couples can currently adopt children, at least in some states, even without gay marriage. This is an issue for many people, and certainly some adoption agencies would not like to be involved in this. However, if gay marriage is legal, this issue becomes void. Agencies that don't want to be involved in giving adoptions to gay couples will face law suits."
This is a huge issue. We should be worried about children being raised by gay parents. Studies have shown homosexuals tend to be more sexually promiscuous and gay parents tend to have very promiscuous attitudes when discussing sex with their children (I have more on that but let's keep moving). Liberals may not have a problem with this but the majority of the country does and for good reason.
"It's hard to justify the governments current support of families (I'm not one that likes to look at empirical data involving social behavior and make a case out of it). This is a form of discrimination they we as a society have decided to embrace, thank goodness. Gay unions should be classified as a separate entity, with their own set of rights and privileges established."
It actually isn't hard to justify the governments support of families. This is another important point to make. Time and time and time again, research (and let's be honest common sense) has proven without a shadow of doubt that the best way to raise children is in a loving biological two-parent home in which the parents are married. In cases of good parenting processes, this stereotypical nuclear family doesn't need to be met in its entirety but the point still remains that this is the best way to raise our future generations. Do we as a society have any greater stewardship than to ensure the health and well-being of children? Numerous social scientists may try to argue there is no
difference between a gay two-parent home and a straight two-parent home but there are holes in that argument (again, if you want I can discuss this more in-depth). I feel it is so important for us to realize the rhyme and reason behind why the government gives preferential treatment to marriage and traditional families.
"One---gay marriage brings with it much more than the ability to live together and love. Two---the same arguments about rights and discrimination that are used in favor of gay marriage could also be used to add a variety of other arrangements into the category of marriage or remove the legal status of marriage all together. If that were directly proposed, it would be swiftly defeated. When logic leads to inconsistency or undesired conclusions, you have to question the
premise."
It's interesting that at gay pride parades you will also find a distinct group of people marching for legalizing bestiality and pedophilia. Why? Because roughly the same logic behind legalizing gay marriage applies to legalizing those two, especially bestiality. This is important to bring up. It's easy for logic to go out the window with some because homosexuality can be a highly emotionally-charged topic but sensibility returns to the scene rather quickly when you point out the repulsive logical foundation for arguing for gay marriage. In addition, I am disgusted at how little attention is paid to the "inconsistency or undesired conclusions" of gay marriage, which is a classic sign of emotions beating down sound reasoning in public forum. Gay marriage is about a lot more than just gays.
"In honesty, I realize that my argument for a separate category (like "unions") could be turned against me. Why not say that marriages between people of different races should be in a separate category as well? There was a point in history when this might have gained approval. I don't have a good answer for that. They just seem like fundamentally different issues, rooted as deeply as biology itself."
We have no reason to classify marriage of different races in separate categories. If we did, I would listen to an argument for such a proposal, even though my knee jerk reaction is to automatically classify such a move as bigoted. We do have reasons for excluding gay marriage from the rest of marriage. I always like to bring up two points. First, marriage is not in fact a right but rather a privilege. We don't allow siblings or first cousins to marry each other. We don't allow underaged individuals from marrying each other without parental approval. We don't allow plural marriage. Just because non-related heterosexuals above the age of 18 are the norm doesn't mean that anything goes in the world of legalized marriage except gay marriage, as the far left liberal movement would have us believe. Second, I would argue for more restrictions on the institute of marriage, and divorce for that matter, way before I would argue for less restrictions. This stance oftentimes throws people for a loop and is definitely a very conservative position to take in this political climate of ours but I firmly believe we should be employing
more restrictions if anything rather than less. I also want to say that unlike many of my conservatives comrades, I do think civil unions are important because I believe there are some gay rights that should be instituted. For example, I believe when a long-time gay life partner passes away, the living partner should have the same property rights as a widowed spouse. Civil unions would allow for this to happen.
"On top of everything I've said, I don't want the government to dictate that my children must be taught that being gay is perfectly acceptable. It's not hard to see that this is going there and beyond.
I can teach my children on my own to love and accept people regardless of their choices"
Amen to that!
It stands to reason, that before we change the fundamental building block of all of society (marriage and family) that we thoroughly study the effects that such marriages will have on our society. Does this new broader definition of marriage benefit society at large? Surely, if gay marriages are found to be detrimental to society, we have the right to restrict them. But who has the burden of proof?
Post a Comment