The voters of California recently voted to keep the meaning of marriage intact, that is, as a union between one man and one woman. Gays in California and elsewhere are upset. I have been following the controversy and I must say that I am saddened but not surprised by the quality of arguments coming from those who wished to change the definition of marriage.
Read more at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protests9-2008nov09,0,7790800.story
As I see it, in this country, marriage has been understood to mean a union between one man and one woman. And the question today is whether the institution should be redefined to include men marrying men and women marrying women.
Or to put it another way, do we wish to change marriage from a union between men and women to an institution based on a persons sexual orientation. Because if marriage is changed in such a way to include those with a same sex orientation, we would remove any rational argument to exclude other orientations.
Certainly some people would claim to be oriented toward both men and women and others no doubt would push the envelope even further, seeking to enter into some bizzare entanglements with multiple partners, inanimate objects etc... On what rational basis could those unions be denied if we have changed marriage to an orientation based institution?
And let us not forget that we have laws pertaining to children, divorce, inheritance etc... that could be made infinitely more complicated than they are today. How would our current laws resolve a divorce and custody issues if one person wishes to dissolve a marriage between several partners? Do the remaining members of the union remain married? What happens to the children?
Now some of you no doubt think I am getting a bit ridiculous and that marriage should be between two people only. But if we have changed to an orientation based system of marriage, do we then discriminate against the bisexuals that wish to marry both men and women? Aren't we all about ending discrimination?
Changing the definition of marriage would have far reaching consequences that we can't even fathom right now. I have not heard of any convincing arguments that address any of the issues that I have brought up. In California, some of the protesters would consider me a hateful bigot.
Hatred for gays is by no means the only reason why a person might vote to keep marriage the way it is. Certainly changing marriage could lead to profound changes in society and it is not too dificult to imagine that some of those changes would not be good.
The advocates of gay marriage have not made a convincing enough case to change an institution thousand of years in the making.
But I am interested in opposing points of view. Bring em on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Sounds like you are talking about changing the slave laws. They were changed and what happened?
The 'state' should get out of the marriage business. It should simply be left up to a contract between people. A car lease, a Circuit City extended warranty on your new plasma tv, a marriage contract, etc.
Marriage laws should be abolished just as slave laws were.
It should simply be left up to a contract between people. A car lease, a Circuit City extended warranty on your new plasma tv, a marriage contract, etc.
How very nice of you to compare thousands of years of "spritual unions" between a man, a woman and God; with a Circuit City extended warranty. Although, I can see a vague similarity between being married and being slave. But, even moreso being a liberal and being a slave.
anon, the question in California and elsewhere is not whether government should get out of the marriage business but whether gays should be allowed to marry people of the same sex. If you have a point of view on that question then by all means weigh in. Perhaps the suggestion that government abolish marriage laws can be taken up another day but I will just say that there would still be a need to address the problems associated with broken unions.
if you pay taxes, you should have the same right as other taxpayers, regardless of how you like to screw. As simple as that.
They do have the same rights anon. Men, whether gay or straight, have the same rights. They can marry a women. True, they may wish not to, and that is there right as well. Where exactly is the discrimination?
What about civil unions?
An interesting idea Michael, but again, not the subject of the debate in California or here. But I will chime in and offer that we pretty much have civil unions already insofar as two people can draw up a contract concerning there stuff, hospital visitation etc...
Michael, do you find it interesting, perhaps telling, that nobody (including you) has even tried to respond to my secular concerns about the potential hazards of gay marriage?
Gay marriage supporters are like the do-gooders who want to ban public smoking. They don't have the guts to do the right thing - ban cigs, period, and get the state out of the marriage business. They each work on their own special interest and what they think they can get passed.
Polygamy is tolerated and even accepted in certain states in America despite being illegal AND un-christian like as pointed out in the bible.
But yet America turns a complete blind eye to these illegal activities to focus on gay marriage, an institution that is lawful.
Government should focus on illegal activities, like polygamy, not subjective ethical concerns.
"Polygamy is tolerated and even accepted in certain states in America"
I tried to find a better response to this remark, but "complete bullshit" is the definitely the most suitable.
"Government should focus on illegal activities, like polygamy, not subjective ethical concerns."
Nice job contradicting yourself in only one sentence.
so Caledon, where in the US can you legally be married to 6 people at the same time?
(anon 1:15PM) If you are trying to make a point then do that, instead of posting simple-minded rhetorical anony-nonsense.
"where in the US can you legally be married to 6 people at the same time?"
Nowhere, it's illegal in every state in this country. But you knew that, so why ask? Because you fail to realize that polygamy is also a "subjectively ethical concern" (your words) and that gay marriage, is in fact not only illegal, but practiced by far more individuals than polygamy, in this country. So, what's the difference ethically or legally between polygamy or same-sex marriage? Nothing.
"But yet America turns a complete blind eye to these illegal activities to focus on gay marriage, an institution that is lawful."
Sure they do. Tell that to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Tom Green, Ervil LeBaron and Warren Jeffs. America turned a "blind eye" to all these guys, didn't they?
If you want to start spouting nonsense about legality, consider this. There are just as many petitions to the Supreme Court to get polygamy legalized, as there are petitions to legalize same-sex marriage, with one BIG difference between the two. Polygamy is a form of expressing religious beliefs and (theoretically), should be guaranteed under the constitution. All major religions of the world allowed at one point (some still do) multiple wives. Same-sex marriage is merely a contract between two people, you know like a Circuit City extended warranty (your words).
anon, I suggest that you change the subject. You are taking a real beating on this one.
A minor point - the Circuit City contract anon is not the same as the polygamy anon.
Nonetheless, marriage should simply be a civil contract, and one should be able to have more than one such contract.
So, basically anon 9:15am you have nothing to add regarding the responses given to you except that marriage should simply be a civil contract because, it just should?
Hey, maybe we "should" start referring to our kids as "assets" too?
Post a Comment