Gay-rights and gay marriage is no exception.
As much as I expect people reading this blog and whomever I come in contact with in my life to understand how I feel, I must expect the same of myself. I have not set out to be a hypocrite.
So, to fulfill my goal of expressing why homosexuals should have equal rights, I have been doing my homework.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
I read this article at least four times. Why? Because I want to really get what this person is trying to say. I went into being open and unbiased and it did help me see why this person feels the way they do. I think they made some legitimate points about how a homosexual doing a job is different from a same-sex marriage.
However, I have my own take on how this article was composed as well as the content.
The first part that struck me was the first sentence in the second paragraph. I can't agree with the idea "that the fundamental objection to gay marriage among most who oppose it has very little to do with one's feelings about the nature of homosexuality or what the Bible has to say about sodomy." From what I've researched and seen is that most people do object to homosexuality because of their belief system. At least at this point, I haven't heard any other reason.
Along with the composition of the article, I think the author did a poor job of getting to the point. Why, again, is marriage between two men or two women different from marriage between a man and a woman? I didn't see a clear-cut statement to back up the claims the author makes.
Lastly, I am confused about the statements made about marriage being romantic. Now, maybe I misinterpreted, but I don't see any legitimate reasons why same-sex marriage can't be romantic. Love is meant to be romantic.
The idea that same-sex marriage doesn't have the sense of kinship like a conventional marriage seems off to me as well. Gay men or lesbian woman are just as capable as adopting or selecting a surrogate mother, or what ever other means of creating a family that they choose. Kinship may not be obtained in the same way as it has in the past with traditional marriage between a man and a woman but it is certainly possible and done often.
My own view - and I am a devout Christian by choice - is that there should be civil and religious options for marriage (pick one or both), with civil unions of any type and between anyone legally qualified having a choice between a standard, state-issued contract (per the marriage license model currently used and which hardly anyone understands is a contract because the state doesn't disclose that nor is it required to) or a legal contract to replace it. A contract is a contract, and that is a legal device which should be managed by the government. Consequently, for anyone entering into such a contract, it's buyer beware. The church is the church, which enshrines very personal spiritual beliefs. Consequently, in my opinion, the church should stay out of bed with the state/State for its own good. Look what its getting into bed with politicians has wrought.
ReplyDeleteWell put, Renae. I agree with you on that. It's a thin line to walk.
ReplyDeleteI would say civil unions are a good first step, but just that. Civil unions to me are an attempt to make “everyone” happy. But in the end, no one is happy. Those who oppose gay marriage still oppose civil unions and those that call for equality do not see civil unions as equal. I understand the want/need to separate church and state. But the fact is that the government does have a definition of marriage. And that definition is what the whole argument is about. Equality is redefining the government’s definition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteI initially agreed with Renae, that it's a matter of semantics and legal standing. But you may be right, Mariah. Just not calling it marriage gives the relationship a second-class standing.
ReplyDelete