I know I have not posted in forever and that will probably change soon. I like topical rants, raves or just answering an interesting question. So I will probably start doing that soon, but since this showed up in the news today I can't stay quiet about it. I know this is going to get me grief from a lot of people if they decide to actually read my blog (I don't think there are tha many), but I really don't care. This news just broke today. Go ahead and read if you didn't know.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,2982265.story
I am against homosexual marriage. Part of this is because of my religious faith, part of it comes from a logical view point. This post will deal with it more from the logical perspective, since my faith is my own. If you want to talk to me about the religious view point feel free to contact me through here. Let me start with a brief addendum though about my personal thoughts on homosexuality.
I know quite a few people who are gay and while I do not support the lifestyle, I am NOT a bigot. I DO NOT discriminate against them or treat them any different than my straight friends. I DO NOT think that they should be dragged out into the street and shoot for making this lifestyle choice. I DO NOT think they are second class citizens or that their rights should be taken away in any way, shape or form. (I do not believe marriage is a right, more on that later). I DO NOT think that they should be discriminated against in their professional or personal life because of their lifestyle choice.
I support civil unions and shared benefits for homosexual couples. I think a partner in a homosexual relationship has the right to make all legal and medical choices over the blood family, even if they don't have the legal power of attorney. They have the right to live their lifestyle as long as it does not interfere with mine. Unfortunately, some of the actions of the GLBT community consistently interfere with the lifestyles of others. I would say more on this but its not the point of my post. On with the arguments! Please keep and open mind.
1. It goes against natural law. Someone show me a homosexual animals in nature. You won't find any because they don't exist. One big reason if animals are gay they can't procreate and therefore die out. Nature has made sure they can't exist through that very through natural selection. It is an unnatural lifestyle.
2. It's a personal choice. Some people will make the argument that they have no choice to be gay; that they are born that way. While science has been able to prove that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that does not mean genetics is fate. If that were the case, I would be an alcoholic with cancer, since there is genetic predisposition to both of those problems. Plus, when people start talking about homosexuality as a lifestyle, your making a choice to live that way, just like I choose to lifestyle to be Christian.
3. The will of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. In California they passed a law several years ago to stop Gay marriage (prop. 22). The majority of the people in CA decided that they agreed with it. The will of the people has been spoken and must be respected. Gays are not discriminated against. The rights given to them in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions are valid and enforcible. But there are people who will say marriage is a right... wrong! Next point. (Check out #7. separation of church and state for another aspect of the will of the majority, but from the religious side.)
4. The right to marry. There is no right to marry. It is found no where in the U.S. Constitution or in almost any state Constitution. Marriage is a privilege granted by the state to those people who fulfill the requirements set by that state in its law; just like driving. Those who do not meet the requirements set up by the state cannot marry. No one is above the law, not even homosexuals.
5. Cross Culture agreement. Looking at anthropology and sociology shows that homosexuality is something that is not accepted in almost ALL modern and ancient societies. There may have been allowance for people who lived like that, but they were not allowed to marry. Why? Because they cannot help continue the society and culture, because they can't procreate. Almost all culture have a homosexuality taboo just like the incest taboo. Redefining marriage from between and a man and woman to allowing same sex marriages go against every major culture and society. Even if those societies allowed polygamy, it was still between men and women, not women and women or men and men. There was no sexual access between the people of the same sex in those polygamous relationship. That is even the case in the Mormon church when they practiced polygamy (even though I guess the fundamentalists still do)
6. What's next? If we allow same sex marriages, what would be next? How do we redefine marriage then? This is the first step off a slippery slope that can lead to the entire destruction of marriage in general. What's next? Marriage between a man and two women or four? Marriage between a woman and her dog since she loves him (or her). Marriage between a man and his dead wife. You start here, where does it stop?
7. Separation of Church & State. Some people argue that by forcing a Judeo-Christian attitude on marriage is having the state endorsing or establishing a religion. The problem with that argument is that every single major religion has a ban or restriction on homosexuality, sometimes for the reasons up above. Its not just Jews and Christians, its Muslims, Hindu and the like; they disagree too. So ruling against Gay Marriage is not endorsing or establishing any religion, it is supporting the logical beliefs of them all. (The will of the majority yet again.) Oh and gay marriage is not a religion so don't say it's not allowing them the free exercise of religion. Besides, the government can regulate religious action, it did it with the Mormon polygamist years ago.
So that is my posting for today. I hope you all enjoyed. Have a great weekend.
AJBulava
