The Non-issue of Gay Marriage
54
Why is this Same Sex Marriage a debate?
Why is gay marriage such an issue in America? Who is for it, and who is against it? Does it really have any relevance in presidential elections? For years the issue of gay marriage has been occupying the air waves, and political debates of the United States. The political value of the issue is great due to the enormous activism of the opposing sides, both of which are very vocal. Both sides of the political fence in the U.S. use these very organized groups that are as much for the issues surrounding gay rights as those that are opposed to them. Some of the groups that are the most vocal have used arguments that this is a moral issue, and homosexuality is forbidden by holy scripture. One such group has gone so far as to say that that the tragic events that occurred on September 11th of 2001 were “Gods punishment for tolerating gays in America”.(Phelps)
 | Amazon Price: $4.98 List Price: $16.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.58 List Price: $22.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $16.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.50 List Price: $18.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $15.50 List Price: $29.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.99 |
Hypocrisy
Ironically the very political party that is most supportive of restricting gay rights seems to have problems keeping members of the party out of trouble due to homosexual activity.(Brusk)
One harsh critic of homosexuals, and staunch supporter of this “conservative” party was arrested, and convicted of soliciting sex from another man while using a Men’s restroom in an airport.(Malcolm)
Around the world sexual abuses by clergymen that often speak in public in weekly sermons have been arrested, prosecuted, and are now in prison for homosexual pedophilia. The hypocrisy of those that are so opposed to this issue is difficult to ignore, and this hypocrisy leads one to believe that the opposition is not one of morality, but one of fear. Fear generated from deep seeded psychological demons that are the result of certain suppressed desires. Fear of the realization that these homophobes may have some same sex desires themselves, so rather then deal with the issue privately, they wish to impose their fears on others with eloquent excuses to hide their real motives. One of the unfortunate aspects of a free society where speech is as unrestricted as religion, these groups that promote fear, intolerance, and ignorance flourish. Many of these groups are very scary because they are not motivated by scripture, they are motivated by fanaticism. These groups insist that if gays are allowed to marry it will jeopardize the institution of marriage. They have argued that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman with oaths given to one another before a clergyman, and a god. In one such argument, the author writes;
How ever much I wish to, I can not be a father to a pebble-I cannot be a brother to a puppy-I cannot make my horse my consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to marry a man.(Shulman)
Schulman basically has done nothing except illustrate his fear, and a man of such wit and command of the
English Language should know that the Constitution of the United States forbids the Federal Government from taking a stand on this issue.
Role of the Supreme Court
In every election year the issue has been, and will be beat upon with large sticks by pundits and activists on both sides. What is puzzling however is the avoidance of the issue by both candidates for the major political parties during the past presidential election. Only one had views posted on his web site, but neither candidate has quoted directly to these views. On John McCain’s site there is a post which reads;
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question. (McCain)
This statement by definition is saying that he would create a situation within the Supreme Court that would ensure that religion and not the constitution is interpreted, and that the very issue of legislating from the bench is not what he is trying to avoid, it is the situation that he is trying to create.
By contrast the Gay Rights movement has been promoting their lifestyles openly in public for some years. They have advocated for the rights to be married in civil unions and for the right to live their lives openly with out fear of discrimination. They have argued that they only wish to have the same rights, and protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. As a government that promotes itself as “Free”, and with a constitution written in such a way that religious freedom is guaranteed both in protection for the practice of faith, and protection from those that practice certain faiths, this issue should not be a problem. Yet millions of dollars are spent each year by both sides of this issue. The unfortunate fact is that this topic still dominates many blogs news outlets, and religious sermons. Hundreds and hundreds of hours are spent on the air ways of radio and television debating whether or not gays should be allowed to be wed in civil unions. Millions and millions of tax dollars are wasted while politicians debate this issue in both halls of congress when those esteemed bodies of lawmakers should be debating issues that are far more relevant to the average American. Issues like an un-just war, and a former criminal executive branch that has led the country down a path of financial ruin. The first amendment ensures that this issue has been removed from the jurisdiction of the individual states by removing the possibility creating faith based laws encroaching on the lives of those that do not wish it. Which by definition says that if the Supreme Court does its job and interprets the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, any law restricting same sex marriage based on the prospect of “Sanctity” will be and should be overruled.
In these troubled times there is one thing that is encouraging, and that is the lack of mention on Barrack Osama’s web site concerning this issue.(Obama) There is no mention of gay marriage there. It is not possible to say what the candidate’s mind is on the issue, because he has not commented on the issue on his web page. What can be said is this however; his lack of emphasis on this non-issue is refreshing. This is not to say that he does not have an opinion on this issue, it is only to say that he does not waste the time of Americans by belaboring it. There are far more important fish to fry and the hand that he has been dealt since occupying the Oval Office is far more grave to the Nation’s future than whether or not a same sex couple can be, or cannot be wed in a civil union.
Americans watch more and more tax dollars wasted on a wedge issue that is used solely to divide the citizens of this country. The purpose of this issue is designed specifically to divert the attention of the American public from the real issues that the Federal Government has control over, and has done little to manage responsibly during the Bush administration. It has been far too long since politicians dealt with the issues at hand rather then what seems to be the current flavor of the week for the corporate media. The last election was very important, but then so are all presidential elections, what made the last one more important then any other that has occurred since 1776 is not the stand on gay marriage, it was the non-stand on a non-issue. It was an election that focused on the real issue of a war that should not have been waged and the near collapse of the economy. It is an election that brought an end to the tenure of a party that is not for the people by the people, but for the corporation, and by the powerful.
Works Cited
Brusk, Steve. “McCain State co-chairman arrested for soliciting sex” CNN 12 July 2007, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/12/mccain-state-co-chairman- arrested/ 2 Nov. 2008
Malcolm, Andrew. “Senator Arrested in Airport restroom” Los Angles Times 27 Aug.
2007, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/08/breaking-news-s.html
2 Nov. 2008
McCain, John. For Preident website is now un-available, date accessed was: 2 Nov 2008
Obama, Barrack. http://www.barackobama.com/index.php 2 Nov. 2008
Phelps, Michel: http://www.godhatesfags.com/ 4 Nov 2008
Schulman, Sam. “Gay Marriage-and Marriage” What Matters in America New
York: Pearson Longman, 2007
CommentsLoading...
They are to me at times as well. Especially when we consider the methods politicians use. Thanks for stopping by BP )
Denial of true feelings brings out the worst in people I agree and for it to be involved with politics does create havoc and confusion for all. It is something that individuals themselves have to address and not the government but who will admit to it? Great Hub! :)
You certainly articulated your position well in this Hub. If I may comment, please: The idea that it is "hypocrisy" in those on the side against Gay Marriage (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) if they have family members and acquaintances who engage in homosexual behavior is an old "straw man." All people sin and those who believe there is such a thing as sin readily admit that. What they do not do is hold parades for their sins or publicly proclaim their favorite sin is actually good and demand vociferously that everybody else do so also—or else they "hate us"—another phony argument. Since when do we supposedly "hate" anybody we disagree with? You want to see hate? Look at the hate directed against Miss California,. That's hate, vile bile. She wasn't hateful at all. You don't see an adulterer's pride parade.
If fact you can be against adultery and against theft and go do both—and still be against them both—without being a hypocrite. We fall short of being perfect human beings. This should not mean we abandon having any values and becoming nihilists. It is not hypocrisy to be contrite and repent for the sins of yourself, your community, your nation. Not only do gays take pride in their sin—they demand we be proud of them, too! Furthermore, all this baloney about folks who "fear" homosexuals only exists in pro-gay minds. My little old grandmother is opposed to changing the meaning the word marriage— that it has had for 6000 years (at least)—and she isn't afraid of anybody nor is she a closet homo. That is ridiculous. Nor do I accept a description of her as ignorant. Ad hominem attacks are the favorite of the gay rights movement—not their opponents. Just the opposite. Christians say hate the sin but you must love the sinner. Gay rights advocates always attack the person they oppose personally.
Yes, it jeopardizes marriage; because if this is OK then why cannot 3 people get married or four or five? Why can't a man marry his sister or mother or daughter? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee them this "right" somehow? Ridiculous, you say? No more ridiculous than gay marriage sounded 20 years ago. How about if we scrap all marriage law and just say anything goes. What kind of society will we have then? We are on a slippery slope when we mess with the meaning of the most important institution in all of humanity (and sacred to most).
The gay rights movement is about forcing all Americans to approve of their behavior—whether it is perverse or not. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until 1973 by the American Psychological Association—and everybody else on this planet. This was the gay rights movements first goal—to pressure the APA to change this designation. They exerted intense pressure and the APA caved in. Since then the APA has created hundreds of new psychological disorders they say effect us—ADHD, this phobia, that phobia—but having an overwhelming desire to make love to the hole designed for the exit of feces—the filthiest part of the human body— and be proud of it!—is not one of them. That is in the normal, natural behavior side now.
The gay rights movement then went to work, slowly but surely, getting the approval of universities (sensitivity training), then television (the gay guy's funny!), then the MSM (gay couples in New York Times nuptials section), then getting it indoctrinated into the 3rd grade with pamphlets and books (Heather has two Mommies). They even have made some church denominations (Episcopalians)capitulate—contradicting publicly the very book they claim brings them together to worship every Sunday. Next up, the stamp of approval by courts but still to come in the future is the persecution of anybody who disagrees. Today, pastors are forbidden to publicly quote Scripture that opposes homosexuality and have been arrested and jailed in Canada, Sweden and other formerly Christian nations. They only want the same rights? They have the same rights. Heteros have the right for man to marry a woman and so do homos. Neither of them have the right to marry someone of the same sex. The both have the same rights; so the supposed Constitutional argument doesn't fly. And since when does the First Amendment—of all things—take away States Rights?
Obama is on record opposed to gay marriage, by the way. Of course he hasn't made a big deal out of it—would you if you had his constituency? These folks are clever. They have successfully planted in some regular people's minds, through indoctrination, the idea that you have to approve gay everything all the time or you hate, you are cowering in fear, you want to divide people, you are ignorant, you are a secret homo yourself, you are a bigot, you are a fanatic, you are a hypocrite, you are intolerant. All false—and that is what works me up about this issue: the constant lying about everything.
Lastly, "this issue is being used to divide us"—by whom?! Who wants to change the status quo of the history of the world, the basic building block of human life? When I see people say you must be FOR gay marriage or you are a divider—nonsense. The ones pressing the issue are the dividers. They are on the attack. We are defending. We are not trying to take anything away from anybody. We are trying to protect what is dear to us—human civilization. This issue is here to "divert our attention from real problems?" You mean the gays are trying to divert our attention from real problems? You must, because there sure aren't any people who favor traditional marriage pushing gay marriage and making it an issue.
ps The last party was run by corporations? That is a myth. Maybe in the 1950s. Small businesses maybe, today. The Fortune 500 companies give 65% of their money to Democrats. Why? They know that massive regulation of business and the environment (including OSHA, EPA, EEOC, NLRB, Cap and Trade, on and on ad nauseum) forces the mom and pop companies out of business, clearing the way for their monopolies.
I approved your post for one simple reason, dispite the fact that I am 100% in dis-agreement with you, you must be heard. Even a bad example is a good example.
Dame Scribe wrote: "Denial of true feelings brings out the worst in people I agree and for it to be involved with politics does create havoc and confusion for all. It is something that individuals themselves have to address and not the government but who will admit to it? Great Hub! :)
Thank you for stopping by DS, I agree with you 100%. Repressed desires often lead to crime. I learned early in my life that I am not gay, but I have met many people who are. They are not sinners, they are not pedophiles, and they do not rail on and on about their life styles. They only wish to live in peace under the protection that the Constitution of the United States offers them under the first amendment.
1st Amd. :"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Frankly I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business entirely. Issue "Civil Union Licenses" to couples (homosexual or heterosexual) confering all of the rights legal "marriage" now gives. Then if a couple chooses to have their union sanctified in a "marriage ceremony" by the religion of their faith they can it will just have no bearing on the legality of their union.
@ James (someone used my name) A Watkins-
How does this jeopardize marriage? I suppose your wife will leave you now? Not because of different paths chosen, but because the gays might have such a union? Does this jeopardize your marriage? Why should they not be afforded the things in this country that are set up for “Married couples”? If a loving couple lives their lives in love, why then should they not be afforded the rights of a union? If a man has had a loving relationship with a man for 20 years, and cannot attend him in a hospital because he is not blood relative or spouse, this is wrong. If two women live in a harmonious and loving relationship for 39 years, and one dies, why should the survivor lose everything that a spouse would have the rights to? The only thing that is a slippery slope is the ground that you are so desperately trying to keep a hold of. And of “Christianity”, are not Mormons Christians too? Oh, I see. Would you be happy if they changed the term to Legal Union? No you wouldn’t. You don’t want to accept any part of their “perversion.”
And Trooper is correct; your “comment” speaks for itself.
Trooper- Thank you for posting this wonderful hub.
Lisafwg01, I agree with you. If there is to be true separation of Church and state, the Government needs to forget about endorsing marriage all together except for civil unions.
Paper Moon, thanks for stopping by making a thoughtful and intelligent contribution to this discussion.
I'm with Paper Moon, trooper-- well done! And yes, the hypocrisy eats my bones and makes me want to hit a wall, or something.
Thanks for taking the time out to read and comment on this hub Elena. I must ask, is that you in your avatar? Classic beauty if so. If not, great choice in conveying an image of intelligence, power, and beauty.
Well, thanks trooper! It is me, and not two weeks ago, too! you have made a woman very happy with a sweet compliment like that!
As a soldier I have always said; "I am here to serve". :)
No gratitude is required for the truth.
PaperMoon—That issue of visitation rights in the hospital is so yesterday. And anybody can leave anything they have to anybody else. It is called a Will.
trooper22 just where In the 1st amendment does It say anything about marriage being a right ?
Tony0724, It dosn't. But it does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." which means that Congress can not pass a law based on Faith.
Faith and religion are 2 different things . Basically the way I read It Is that the Government cannot establish a church like they did In England . Which Is part of the roots of the liberties we now enjoy . Since part of what brought our predecessors here was the religious opression by the church of england i:e: the pilgrims
I am far from a religious person but I do have some faith
And that is your right Tony. But the moment we start telling other people what is right and wrong about issues that would otherwise not harm anyone other than possibly infringing upon (insert theology here) It is wrong e.g. If two people of the same gender wish to have a civil union, more power to them. The government, nor you or I have the right to tell them that they can not based upon Religion, and that is the point of this hub.
The Pilgrims were not asked to leave, they were told never to come back. Their puritanical methodology was a bit over the top even for the 17th Century, and that's saying a lot. But you are correct about Religious oppression being one of the main reasons the Constitution was worded the way it was. You may wish to look up John Locke by the way. His Liberal philosophies are what the U.S. Constitution is based upon.
Not to mention Montesquieu, who said, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson when he commented on what he called the Great American Experiment, "Republics are free governments headed by popularly elected leaders, which can only exist resting firmly on the foundation of virtue."
Charles De Secondat Baron of Montesquieu was a Royalist, although liberal for his time. His influence on the Constitution pertained to the separation of powers,(ala James Madison; e.g. Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and had nothing to do with separation of church and state. He was a devout catholic, and subservient to the crown of France. Although he wrote about the decadence of Versailles and Rome, he also advocated for the 3 classes of the body politic. The Monarchy, the Nobles and the Commons, all three mutually exclusive and stagnant.
The concept of Virtue comming from a Christian in light of the countless atrocities commited by "Good Christians" since the Romans dominated the religion is laughable.
Wow great hub and truthfully not one I would usually read, but I think its good to hear both sides of the fence so it was good that you allowed James' voice to be heard too . I agreed in parts with you both. In the end though my heart will follow Christ and what he says about Homosexuality, but before you write me off completely I have to add that when Jesus was challenged on which was the most important commandment he replied "Love One Another" for this is the greatest commandment of all.
I absolutely agree that all people ,red,black,pink or blue should be treated fairly ,with justice and mercy. In the end God will judge us all anyway so lets just get on with obeying the greatest commandment. Sorry if I got off track ,but since New Zealand revamped its laws ( not allowing Gays to marry) 3yrs ago allowing 'Civil Union Contracts' many were shocked ,felt betrayed by the Government and many weeks rallies and protests were held. Your hub ( and other comments) made me think afresh where exactly I stand on this issue ,so thankyou for putting your thoughts down on paper.
Thank you for visiting and for your soulful comment Eaglekiwi. Perhaps if more people actually followed the teachings of the young man from Galilee as opposed to people that do wrong in his name we all would be better off.
Fair question to ask if this is relevant to presidential elections... Even if the presidential candidate is supportive of gay marriage, it doesn't mean it's going to happen. The courts totally went against Clinton's outright support for it, and it resulted in Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
I agree that it is refreshing to have it be a non-issue with Obama. And wow is that family in the video over the top. That's insane. I can't imagine anyone raising their small children to be so focused on a hate-based, negative approach to everything. That's truly incredible. Those kids will approach every issue in their lives from that negative nasty angle since it's not only what they know, it's how their God is. Their song acutally has the lyrics "God hates" in it. LOL. Talk about irony.
I will say that I'm not sure your interpretation of the McCain quote "by definition" says what you say it does. I'm not dissagreeing with your message, mind you, but from a use-of-quotes standpoint, I think that you either need to break it out of that quote for me in small pieces and show me how that quote translates the way you say it does, or... well, or I remained unconvinced on that particular part of your hub. That quote could just as easily be read to mean that McCain is saying he wants to leave decision making to local government and not the judiciary... a very standard conservative argument stemming from the old pure democracy vs a republic stuff, the Federalist arguments etc, as well as balance/separation of powers etc again. Maybe just need more of that section of his website or something, more of what came before or after that part you cite. Or tell me to bugger off, lol. I can take it. :)
Anyway, a good solid piece of work this, I recognize and salute the effort that you put into it.
Great peice of work...well written! Thanks! "God created beautiful sex...religion made it ugly....Let God decide...He's a big boy." This little previous statement was just removed from a christian hub against gays.
Glassvissage, I agree. I was still serving in the 90's when Clinton employed the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy. I was then serving in an Infantry Battalion in Germany and I can tell you first hand that it was not well received by the vast majority of the troops. That is openly. I have known a few gay soldiers that were very good soldiers, and kept their lifestyles to themselves and they got on well. By contrast I have also met, and even had a rather bad encounter with one that were not in control of their attraction and chose to force the issue on un-willing comrades. In this case it is definitely a moral problem. In my case I acted irrationally and beat the man within an inch of his life. I am not proud of that, but I have to also point out that I was drunk and passed out in my own room when I awoke to find a man in my bed. Needless to say things went down hill from there. This man was put out of the Army, and I got an under the table pat on the back for exposing him and dealing with him the way I did. This event occured in 1981 while I was in Germany on a previous tour.
I posted my thoughts regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on another hub http://hubpages.com/hub/gayinthemilitary
Shadesbreath, yea those folks are pretty scary to say the least.
As to the quote, it is not a direct quote and as I found it on the "McCain for President" web site (which no longer exists I am sorry to say) it is as you see it, and it is paraphrased and I can only assume that one of his campaign workers wrote it.
The part that I refer to specifically is;
"Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family"
No where within the Constitution does it define this statement of "traditional Family" and by definition this is the realm of the 1st Amendment as it refers to religion. Which of course is to the point of the Hub. It would be against the Constitution of the United States to create a law promoting, or prohibiting Religious Union, e.g. Marriage.
Tom, I am sorry to hear that a Christian Huber would remove a statement like that. It is not offensive, and merely expresses your opinion in a respectful manor. I guess the concept of "Freedom of Expression" is lost on people.
You are always welcome here brother, thanks for the compliment.
Great hub. I think the media are corporately-owned and so we are continually encouraged to fight with each other so as to get our minds off of being ripped off on a massive scale by the 1/2% at the top of the food chain. Corporate America has become corporate government and its mostly parasitic. I voted for Obama and like him, but there's this big shadow looming over him--AIG, BOA, Citi--these organizations are like world-power nations now. We don't matter. We get the internet, where we can stay busy arguing about other people's sexual habits. They just want us out of their hair, and lots of folks fall for it.
Nice hub trooper. It was also nice of you to approve the logically challenged comments made by James A. Nothing new there: slippery slope argument: if gays can marry why not 3 ?
Combining church and state: virtue= biblical, hateful laws.
Giving gay couples equal rights makes a mythological master of the universe mad and destroys traditional marriage.
We've been here before.
Pgrundy, You are spot on. The U.S. may not have a state run news outlet, but when I look at Fox, we certainly have a private agenda corporate propaganda network.
Ron, thanks, I agree it is a slippery slope, much like prohibiting certain groups to speak, while others are suppressed. I wrote an essay for school not long ago on free speech which ties into this one. I am in the process of editing it for this outlet.
I agree with James A Watkins.
Trooper lacks any of the details any references in his retort to James.
Trooper has an opinion, but that is all it is an opinion.
Congress is a failure and has been one for over fifty years and the root cause of that failure is their lack of ability to work as a team for the people.
Voting Row A or Row B is dumb and circumvents your right to a free election, where the purpose is to fill the elected positions with the best candidate and not just because of their party association.
Gays like smokers have fabricated their rights without a constitutional basis. The lobby for both of these groups is powerful and they persist in these artificial rights. Not because they should but because they can manipulate the legal system.
How is gay sex not pornographic? So should we dispense with the law against pornography?
Why don't we have a right to go naked in public?
Why don't we have a right to drive a vehicle? Driving is a privilege and not a right. Check it out for yourself.
With freedom of speech, why are there laws against defamation? Shouldn't you have the right to say anything to someone or about someone, even if it is false.
As James mentioned, why can't you marry a relative or multiple partners?
Why do we have segregated public restrooms in this country? If it is to separate the sexes from each other, that would have to be based on sexual attraction. Then where does that put men that are attracted sexually to other men and women attracted to other women?
The government should really not have gotten involved with marriage in the first place. It should be reserved as a religious ceremony only and any civil or governmental oversight would be done with a separate civil contract. That would give everyone the right to contract their promises. Marriage could be replaced with a business partnership or corporate entity.
But none of these should validate the lifestyle of gays as normal. Humans with their artificial means can survive without gays procreating but that is done outside the norm.
Maybe the next constitutional challenge would be by people between the ages of 18 and 20 to generate lawsuits to petition their right to vote and drink anywhere in this country. This would be more legitimate of a right than gay marriage.
BTW, the fact that you told James that you approved his comment implies that you don't believe in freedom of speech. You hold censorship in your hand on this hub. Otherwise, all comments would be made available for the readers to judge their worth for themselves.
I find it interesting that you took such a hostile tack. Perhaps you missed the works cited area. You should read the post completely and not just one man's response, but that is your choice. And the approval of your post pretty much leaves the "not believing in free speech" tack baseless. Thanks for visiting.
I agree it is a slippery slope, much like prohibiting certain groups to speak, while others are suppressed.
<a href="http://workfromhomeindia.biz"> Work from home </a>
Preetirajlaxmi Thank you for the comment.
Hmm. First, fantastic hub. :) I agreed with all of it.
Second, on the issue of government and religion having their hand in marriages and civil unions, someone made a really good comment on another hub about this. I think I saw your comment on there, too!
This is the hub: http://hubpages.com/hub/God-vs-Gays-Prop-8-and-The
Here's the comment: "...wish that all marriages were un-legalized: no special rights for married people. No special rights just because you happen to be in a committed sexual relationship of whatever sort. Isn't having that wonderful relationship reward enough? Do you have to rub it in for all the people who are single that not only do you have a special thing going, but also you get tax breaks and a leg up finding a job at your partner's academic institution and special breaks if one of you wants to stay home with the kids?"
So it's true, government should not have gotten involved in marriage. But I also don't think marriage should be exclusive to religion. Marriage or civil unions should be choices of the people on their own, of any religion or lack thereof.
This next one is directed to the folks who are railing against this hub.
Third, on the argument of slippery slope, the argument that if we allow gay people rights, we're forced to allow *more* people rights. Gasp. Hmm, no, not holding any traction for me. I want to go on the record as saying allowing people to marry more than just one spouse is not inherently a bad thing in my opinion.
As for laws against defamation, marrying relatives, marrying your dog, pedophilia, etc .... well, those are very useful laws. Why? Because number one, defamation is harmful. Number two, marrying relatives.. well, I shouldn't touch on this one because I haven't actually thought about it. I just know it's taboo for some reason.
Number three, marrying your dog is irrelevant. That's like saying you think gays are inhuman. We're talking about HUMAN relationships and marriages being given rights and the recognition they deserve. Safe, consensual, and human relationship and marriages. Plus, your dog does not have a voice, sweetie. Dogs are considered children when people share homes with them. Your dog won't be able to tell you, "Sure, I want you to screw me" or "Sure, I'll marry you" - in fact, your dog may not like anything you do to it at all! People, on the other hand, can tell each other "I love you", "I'll marry you", "I'll consent to a wonderful, fantastic sex with you", etc.
Number four, I don't see how pedophilia or molestation or anything to do with children gets mentioned here. Pedophilia is non-consensual, harmful, un-safe, and traumatizing - nothing like the consent adult gays give to eachother to marry or love for the rest of their lives.
As a side note, I always thought it was a bit funny to segegrate public bathrooms in regards to gender. There's stalls, anyway, right?
Trooper, thanks for writing this hub and being so informative. I'm sorry I got on a bit of a rant here, but I thought I'd share those thoughts that came directly from reading your hub and the comments here. Thank you. :)
Sunny, thank you for taking the time to make an intelligent and thought out response to this discussion. Never apologize for making sense :)
Just a quick note per the U.S.--Allowing gays to marry doesn't confer any 'extra rights' on homosexuals, it just recognizes publicly their already existing equal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The founding fathers held that truth to be "self-evident", the fact that everyone is born with those three "inalienable" rights. It is our government, in violation of its own precepts, that is abridging those rights.
After gay marriage becomes normal, people who are freaking out over homosexuality will still be just as free to attend churches that teach it is deviant and evil and so on and so forth, just like survivalists will still be free to hole up in the Michigan UP with five years worth of dried food and an arsenal of registered weapons, and Neo-Nazis will still be free to dress up like porn stars and shave their heads. In America everybody is free to be as crazy as they wanna be so long as they don't trample on the rights of their neighbors.
This is 5th grade social studies stuff.
Wow, that is a brilliant response and dead on, not to mention a good chuckle as well ;)
"Neo-Nazis will still be free to dress up like porn stars" ROFL, I wonder if this applies to Carl Rove. What an image! ahhhhhh!
OMG--Now I can't get the visual of Turd Blossom in bondage gear out of my head...
Thanks a lot trooper!
ROFL! Sorry Pgrundy :)
I personally do not care what people do in the privacy of their own home, and if people want to be married I believe that is a church function, one that some churches will do, but others will not.
I am in a church that allows it. I really do not want any government or other church telling anyone they can't. I am straight but I am angry that gay and lesbian life couples are not allowed the benefits of a married couple. I know of gay couples where a partner can't visit his dying partner because the union is not recognized, and where insurance benefits are not extended to the life partner. Yet a man and a woman not married can get these benefits in some places.
Time to end that government restriction and leave it up to churches to decide. The church I go to has many gay couples who were wed in the church. Marriage is, after all, a church responsibility.
The problem with that is; Churches should not have a say in civil unions. Religious doctrine to the churches, Law to the government. If a same sex couple wishes to go to a church that allows a religious union, then by all means they should. The point of this article is that Churches have no business in the government, and the government has no business in religion as long as said religions are not breaking the law. The non-issue is that same sex couples should be allowed to have civil unions and that dis-allowing them that right is a violation of the first amendment if that prohibition is based on the "Sanctity" of marriage.
Thanks for stopping by Jeff, and for having an open mind.
Exactly, trooper22, churches to church business and government to government business. I did not grow up in a theology and won't tolerate one being created here. Civil unions for all, and church marriages within the allowances of each, individual church.
Bravo for a great hub!
Thanks again Jeff :)
Trooper22 -
Great job here; well-written and clearly making a superior, fact-based point here. Speaking of the "straw man" arguments, the opponent's presentation of incest, beastiality, and polygamy as equivalent arguments are clearly irrelevant. As if when gay marriage becomes legal, everyone is going to run out and try to start marrying family members, animals, and multiple partners.
This problem is exactly why the separation of church and state is so important. Why should ANY church or religion have a say in law that affects me or any citizen? James A Watkins' argument clearly is from his religious beliefs. I don't argue with people about such things because I have no desire to change his mind and he will not change mine.
Americans think church & religion is a benevolent force and many don't understand why it should be kept out of government, schools, and other public venues. If you were forced to endure beliefs of a religion that were repulsive to you, then you would surely understand. Problem is, most Christians, being the majority of the US, have never been subjected to such a thing and are in denial that they might someday be replaced as the powerful religious majority and be subject to some beliefs they don't share, but rule their lives.
But, I digress! This article and the comments have illustrated the issue well. Thanks for bringing it!
You're welcome LTB, and thanks for making a thought provoking comment. As to Mr. Watkins and others that may feel the same way as he; all I can say is that millions if not billions have been slaughtered in the name of one god or another and that is why the fore fathers added the first amendment. While the U.S. is engaged on a war against radicals of Islam, we have failed to deal with the radical Christians right here. Radicals such as those that would stump for political agendas from the pulpit, or radicals that prey on children, or still others that preach for profit while sitting behind tax shelters designed for charities. The hypocrisy of the "god fearing" is scary to say the least.
blondepoet Level 3 Commenter 3 years ago
Hey Trooper woo hoo I am the first one here. Well I have to say for a Blonde that was very deep reading. Yes a little went over my head, but the parts I did comprehend you did a great job.......Politics and tools are a complete mystery to me. :)