I’m writing this to address the liberal minded people out there and the moderates who are quickly jumping on the band wagon of supporting the gay marriage movement in hopes that you would read this and open your perspective on the issue.
Gay Marriage isn’t just a civil rights issue, It’s a separation of church and state issue.
For those of you who don’t know your history, marriage is an institution that was ordained by God and incorporated into religious practice since the beginning of civilization, and then much much later adopted by the federal government to identify families for tax and legal reasons. If you don’t like that the government piggy backing it’s legislation on religious institutions like marriage, then that is a different issue then modifying the definition of marriage. You could change the tax laws and allow for contractual arrangements for all those instances that require legal relationships. This could be useful to more than just homosexuals. But you CAN’T redefine a religious sacrament that predates the constitution to make yourself feel better.
If you disagree, as a homosexual, then I have one challenge for you. Procreate.
There has been much work done in the past decade to provide equal rights to everyone despite their sexual preference, with the exception of pedophiles, animal lovers, and polygamists. There are some issues that really need to be dealt with when it comes to health care decisions and identifying next of kin. But it seems like a simple next of kin document and some form of power of attorney document would take care of most of those issues. This is where the concept of civil unions has come in to provide for those issues in one document. But in America, the gay movement says that that is not enough. Why? European gays don’t mind civil unions. Mainly because they don’t care much about God or what Godly people think of them. In America, this generation of homosexuals is looking for more than rights. They are asking for everyone’s approval. They want to be told it’s more than allowable, that it’s normal. But it’s not normal. It’s not equal to a man and wife. You can have equal rights, but you are not guaranteed equality. If you disagree, as a homosexual, then I have one challenge for you. Procreate. Show me how you contribute to the whole of society through re-population. See, in the Christian belief, marriage was designed for the purpose of producing offspring. To “Go forth and multiply” was the command by God to Adam and Eve. You may say that you don’t believe in the bible or in God all together, so these arguments don’t hold up. But then I ask you, why are you trying to change the religious institution of marriage? Why not be content with the rights and liberties of civil unions.
The reason that so many are moving towards supporting the gay ajenda for marriage rights, is that they have fallen into a slipper slope argument that begins with a bad premise.
- Gay people are a minority group like racial minorities, who are being oppressed because of they are different.
- Civil Unions are a lesser status then marriage and an insult to equality.
- Non-support of Gay marriage makes you a close minded bigot raciest hate monger.
- Gay marriage doesn’t harm anyone, so why bother being against it.
If it was genetic, they would be extinct by now…
First of all, I have to admit, I’m a white guy in his early 30′s, so I’ve never experienced real racism first hand. But I do love to hear the stories of the stories of the sit-ins and demonstrations that revolutionized our countries race relations. America was wrong about a bunch of issues when it came to interacting with different cultures. We destroyed the Indians culture to dominate it with one we were more comfortable with. We engaged in the heinous act of slave trade and for a long time after looked down upon dark skinned people and pigion holed their potential. We poked fun and stereotyped the Irish when they migrated to our shores. We vilify Latinos for political posturing. We suck at race relations as a country. But to measure the struggles of homosexuality up to the struggles of racism, to me, feels like an insult to the civil rights movement. People are not born gay. This is a story some would like for you to believe, but the tough truth is that it is just a sexual and relational preference. It isn’t a genetic disposition, because that’s impossible, since gay people don’t pass genes down. If it was genetic, they would be extinct by now, or at least in an ever decreasing population.
Homosexuality is more comparable to the hippie movement of the late 60′s and early 70′s. It’s a lifestyle, not a race. And people hated hippies too, and even kicked them out of stores and restaurants. But that wasn’t racism. That was seeing someone who’s culture and values were perceived as a danger to you and your offspring and reacting to protect your culture and values. And now, several centuries later, we can all agree that the drug and free love atmosphere of that movement wasn’t all that they had hoped it would be and did in fact do a lot of damage to those who got lost in it.
Some hard line conservatives are bothered by the fact that I’m okay with civil unions. My feelings are that as long as they don’t try to mess with my rights and religious practices, then I have no right to oppose them because I believe it to be immoral. I’m comforted by the fact that my beliefs are based on principles that have survived this kind of thing in the past and will outlast this phase of history as well. Allowing for civil unions won’t turn any more people gay, just as not allowing them doesn’t stop homosexual behavior. But I do have issue with messing with the identity of changing the definition of marriage. I want my children to grow up seeing marriage as a sacred and life changing event that is the celebration of the beginning of a new family.
it’s a slippery slope when the government starts defining religious institutions
I don’t blame homosexuals for the downfall of marriage. It has been under attack for a long time by the culture off divorce and separation. But that doesn’t mean we can further distort it’s meaning. It means that now, more then ever, we need to stand up for it and defend it from harm.
Who does it really hurt? It might not seem like much if you are not a person of faith, or hold anything to be sacred. But it’s a slippery slope when the government starts defining religious institutions and legislating who is allowed to partake in them. Will the next step be laws that define who is eligible for salvation. Who can be baptized and how. The government has no place in that. And in case you didn’t know, the bible is very clear on this. Those eligible for salvation are everyone. Including gays, rapist, murders, and even overly opinionated jerks like me.
If you think I have it completely wrong, then leave a comment and tell me how. Or even better, write your 1000 word essay on the issue and submit it to fickled.com. But whatever you say, don’t call me close minded. I have given this a lot of thought, and being against something is not the definition of close minded.
You did a really great job on this extremely touchy subject. I agree with you almost 100%. I was especially pleased to see someone finaly point out the supreme ignorance of those who tout “seperation of church and state” as the reason christians should stay out of this matter. The opposite is so obviously true, the government needs to stay out of it.
I would agree that the government takes far too much of a interest in our personal relations, however I think we need to consider two things;
First, a great many rights and government benefits (such as some rather hefty tax breaks, insurance issues, adoption preferances, SS for lost spouces, greencards for foreign spouces, etc…) are heaped upon married couples that are otherwise unavailable to homosexuals and singles. The obvious solution would be to remove all of these incentives from marriage so that it is simply a religous ceremony between the individuals getting married and their diety.
Second, not every religion adheres to the same values and views as christianity. Infact, there are a number of up-and-coming religions that are rather pro gay marriage so by claiming marriage as a part of the seperation of church and state you would automatically be allowing gay marriage.
Also, I feel I should point out that historically homosexuals have suffered from a great deal of persecution and hate crimes, including being ostracized by their family and community, being looked down upon by society, issues gaining employment, loss of parental and adoptive rights, being lumped in with sexual deviants and pedophiles, and even being attacked and killed…
I know my solution would ultimately mean that straight couples would need the same contracts that gay couples would need in order to be viewed by the state as a family unit, but also any group could consider themselves a family unit with complete disregard to sexual preference. It may just be a semantics issue to people who think that marriage is just a word. Like I said, I’m not against unions, just this idea that it has to be marriage to be just and fair, and anything else is an insult. And yes, you can make up your own religion and call yourself King of America, but the government doesn’t grant that title. Can you explain to me why if you can join a religious sect and have a “wedding”, and it was possible to have a civil union that took care of all legal issues, why the gay agenda is pushing so hard for the word Marriage to come from the government?
Oh, almost forgot… genetic homosexuallity wouldn’t neccessarily lead to the extinction of the homosexual population if any of the following were true;
1) It was a recessive genetic trait passed on by straits who carried the gene
2) It was be caused by common genetic mutations
3) Homosexuals reproduced with the oppposite gender (caused by confusion over sexuality, desire to have children, need to appear ‘normal’ to society/family, etc…)
Although there are other theories that would indicate that while its not a matter of choice its also isn’t one of genetics. For example, one theory states that it’s caused by the mother’s body building up a resistance to high testosterone levels during pregnancies, which would be supported by research showing that boys are more likely to be gay if they had older brothers. Another claims some cases may be caused by the individual being a chimera (person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells) with a brain of one gender and the body of the other. Although, truthfully I don’t think there is any one set answer and that the behaviors are more likely caused by a combination of issues including both social factor and genetic predispositions…
Okay, so then we need to allow any other sexual preference to have a defense of genetics. If there was real research to show the exact cause of homosexuality, then I would be interested to hear it. And hey, if it’s a genetic mutation or a chemical imbalance in the mother, then it’s curable, right? We could rid the world of these abnormalities with the proper health care system. Parents could be tested to ensure they didn’t both carry the gay recessive gene. It’s a pretty slippery slope when you start to claim it’s genetic. Let’s be honest, EVERYONE, gay or straight has sexual preferences and most if not all of them are direct results of childhood and adolescent experience or environment.
I believe in America, you get to believe whatever crap you want. So if you want to believe that God made gays gay, then that is your freedom. But the gay’s that turn straight, they get to believe something else, and straight people who turn gay, they have their reasons too. It’s not really the governments place to get involved in these decisions, when there is no proof of who’s viewpoint is correct. And currently, there may be a load of theories, but there is no proof. If there was a good chance and finding genetic proof, I would think the gay lobby could spend the money on it. Cause honestly, it would make even a dusty old religious wacko like me take a double take on the issue.
Alright, this is my last one… If you assume that homosexuals are unequal and undeserving of the right to marry because of a inability to procreate, wouldn’t you also have to remove the right to marry from straight individuals who are unable to have children for other reasons or atleast from the ones who choose not to procreate?
thats like saying that baseball players who don’t hit home runs are not allowed to play baseball. And your saying that when the hockey team shows up in skates, padding and hockey sticks in hand, we should let them play on the base ball diamond and call it baseball. Just cause you sign up for the team, (talking about marriage here) doesn’t always mean you are going to get off the bench. But you can’t play on the team if your not sporting the right equipment. That’s probably a horrible sports analogy, but I think you get my point. You can play other games, you can even try to make up a new game, but this game of marriage has been played since the beginning of humanity. Changing the rules at this point isn’t fair to the teams who are already playing. It will only make marriage like “new coke” and “arena football”. And eventually it will be dead. That’s why people are fighting to protect it and that’s why I wrote this to help other to understand our perspective. You don’t have to agree, but at least be open minded about it.
I’ll admit you actually have a number of valid points. It is pretty ridiculous to expect a several thousand year old religion to change it’s entire way of thinking and do a complete reversal of it’s view of morality and the nature of marriage for any reason short of devine intervention. The problem is that marriage has become, for better or worse, a government institution and even if you were to create a entirely seperate system which is virtually identical in every way, there would still be problems with the denial of gay marriage. “Separate but equal” leaves the door open to far too many opportunities for inequality and persecution merely due to perceived diferences and stigmas. The only way I see to handle the issue without creating social inequality would be to completely abolish marriage as a government institution (which, if it is a religious institution really has no pace in government anyway. Seperation of church and state), thereby making marriage a nonlegal union completely under the power of the church to permit, deny and regulate as their doctrine dictates, and (if for some reason you still feel an absolute need for government regulation) institute civil unions and prenuptial agreements to handle the legal aspect for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation. Like you said, it would just be a matter of semantics and certain religions would undoubtedly perform same sex marriages but christian marriage would be safeguarded from homosexuality.
As to the cause of homosexuality, I don’t think God made gays gay. While it might be considered plausable (although I’d think VERY unlikely) that God would give an attraction to other men (as a test of faith or some such) the decision to act on those desires would still lie entirely with the individual. From that angle, homosexuality is a choice. However, there is a great deal of evidance that suggests that in the majority of homosexuals the attraction to individuals of the same sex is not a choice and thats where things start to get tricky. First, homosexuality would probably not be ‘curable’ or even treatable. We’re still decades away from safe retroviruses that could be used to alter the ‘gay gene’, and there is no guarantee that it would be able to “fix it”. The basic structures in the brain would already be in place, which is the same reason that the theory about testostrone rejection during pregnancy works. The brain is already hardwired for gay. However, it would most likely become preventable through preventative medicine. Which brings me to the second point. The majority of people in the homosexual community don’t feel that there is anything wrong with them or with being gay, and most would find the idea of a cure for homosexuality as offencive as african americans would find the idea of a cure for being black.
I would like to take this moment to ask that even if homosexuality is caused by nurture and not nature and your theory that “everyone, gay or straight has sexual preferences and most if not all of them are direct results of childhood and adolescent experience or environment” is correct, would that really make homosexuality any more of a choice? While I stand by my assertion that the decision to act upon on one’s desires is wholely the responsibility of the individual, but the innermost desires that lead to these decisions are not so cut and dry. Regardless of whether the cause is in the hardwiring or if it is learned during our youth, the fact remains that everyone does have sexual preferences and gays can no more likely start being attracted to the opposite gender than you or I could start liking men.
And to finish off, while I would agree that we shouldn’t just start letting hockey players on the baseball field just because they show up and want to play, I also believe we shouldn’t shun the NFL just because baseball is Americas passtime. If a man and a woman truely love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together with gods blessing, than that is something truely glorious beautiful and gay marriage can’t take that away because it’s what exists between them that makes special. And to be perfectly honest, if two people who genuinely love one another have less of a right to that than a those who are just after a greencard or financial security or to avoid having a kid out of wedlock or who will just leave each other in a few year, that what is it about marriage is really worth fighting for anyway?
Howdy there,this is Junie Aumen,just found your web-site on google and i must say this blog is great.may I quote some of the article found in your weblog to my local mates?i’m not sure and what you think?in either case,Many thanks!
Sure, feel free to snag anything from here.