I was pointed to a blog posting about the importance of protecting marriage during a discussion on gay marriage.
Let me be clear. I, in no way, disagree with the positive nature of the traditional nuclear family. Let's be honest though, the straight people have been screwing this up royally for at least 50-60 years all on their own (don't blame me, I've been happily married for 17 years). If it is so imperative to protect traditional marriage, why aren't people all riled up about divorce? I know that many people are against it, but politicians haven't exactly based their campaign strategy on it. I would have to say that a divorce rate of 50% against 90-97% of the population (depending on which numbers you use) is much more critical to the institution of marriage than the simple recognition of marriage on a percentage of people that only make up 3-10% of the population.
I think the real problem for opponents is that they've been taught that homosexuality is a horrible, evil, awful sin. The gay rights movement was already on their radar over the last decade or two as yet another encroachment into their country by deviant, sinful people. Now, they want to partake in their sacred institution of marriage? Are you kidding me?
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm doing that for effect. What goes on at an emotional level can often be suppressed or rationalized by our logic. I've read many arguments against gay marriage based on, at a minimum, an attempt to confront this topic in a logical way.
I just don't see how legalizing gay marriages has any effect on the importance of traditional marriages. Is the word so sacred that it must mean a man and a woman? For me, two gay men being married would have zero impact on my life or the lives of my children ... unless one of them happens to be gay. In which case, I hope they live a long, loving life with a partner that makes them happy and that this union is recognized by society as a legitimate one.
Why not just let them have civil unions?
Would you want your life committed relationship called a civil union or a partnership while other couples are called married? I wouldn't. I would feel it undermined my relationship or gave preference to others.
Gay couples generally want to be part of mainstream society. They don't want to tear it down. If they didn't want to be part of mainstream society, they would thumb their noses at traditional institutions like marriage.
2 comments:
This issue was one of the main reasons I left the Mormon Church. I didn't like being told I wasn't following the prophet if I didn't oppose gay marriage and I couldn't see how allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with my right to be married to a man and raise my children in a traditional nuclear family.
I think that one's personal feeling on homosexuality should have no impact on how you see the rights of people to free association and equal protection under the law.
Freedom and liberty must supercede our own personal feelings.
To quote Garth Brooks:
"When we're free to love anyone we choose ... when this world's big enough for all different views ... when we're all free to worship from our own kind of pew ... then we shall be free."
Post a Comment