I just discovered a site called Helium that invites people to write on various issues. I happened on the issue of gay marriage. Of course I couldn't let that one pass without comment. While this certainly wasn't my most eloquent prose (I actually do have work to do on my last day and therefore was trying to crank something out quickly), I did touch upon many of my main points. I will never understand the hypocrisy of people who use religion as a means to justify prejudice. I don't understand people who believe in a cruel and judgmental God. I'm sure, though, that I'll get into religion far more in posts-to-come and since I have 9 minutes until pizza arrives and I still have this project to do, I guess I'll just paste my little rant below.
On Marriage - for all.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is the country's founding principle. It doesn't have any exceptions for whether you agree with your neighbor's concept of happiness. It doesn't specify that the pursuit of happiness must be in concert with any specific religious beliefs. In fact, in those documents that define what kind of nation this country would be, it specifically says each individual has religious freedom.
Who has defined marriage as a "sacred institution between only a woman and a man?" Presumably, anyone who agrees with that statement will reference a religious doctrine. Though perhaps inspired by a divine source, even religious documents were transcribed by humans and humans are fallible - subject to their times and their personal prejudices. Perhaps, therefore, interpretations of those documents should err on the side of promoting love and kindness and mutual support, no matter who is exhibiting those qualities.
Most religions are, most fundamentally, about God's love for mankind. God loves his "children" and wants them to love one another. Religious testament asks us not to judge others, lest we be judged. This is particularly important when twice or thrice married individuals (like those members of Congress who passed the "Defense of Marriage" act) criticize monogamous, loving relationships between other couples who happen to be members of the same sex.
One of those imponderable questions is how anyone's relationship is in any way impacted by other couple's relationship. To claim that opening God's sacrament of marriage to other couples in any way diminishes its value is an indication of extreme insecurity and bigotry.
Now, if it's a question of semantics, one can make a strong argument that the state should not be involved in conferring "marriage" on anyone. Leave that to the churches and then leave it to the churches to pursue hypocritical policies that deny God's love and sanction to one's fellow men and women. The state should only confer "civil unions." But those civil unions should not be something for which anyone has to ask permission - it is not the state's duty to determine who is eligible to pursue happiness. It should be something about which one simply informs the state. "I am now part of a civil union."
And certainly this is not a "state's rights" issue. When liberal politicians make that argument it is an incomprehensible cop out. How can a couple be married in Massachusetts but not in Kansas? What happens if they must move to Kansas for work?
Someday, people will have to turn away from the dark side of religious indoctrination, fear and prejudice to realize that God's true message is one of love. Love, in any form, is good and should be encouraged. And more importantly, people should realize that morality is a personal issue that should be lived and taught among families - not legislated and not imposed on strangers.
This is a country came to be because brave individuals wanted the opportunity to live free and worship (or not) as they saw fit. Who are we to destroy their vision and undermine their noble purpose?
My Blog List
Subscribe To Mythenrock
Posts
Comments
2 comments:
What is the essence of a chair? Hmmm... let me think. A chair is a seat for one person right? Well, a chair includes the concept of a single seat but so does a stool. Is a stool a chair? No it isn't. Why? because a chair, and only a chair is a seat with a back. While there are many other types of seats, only a seat with a back fits the definition of a chair. A chair can take many forms; some have arms and some don't, some have four legs, others have less, but what makes a chair to be what it is, is its definition, its essence. If you change the definition of a chair then it becomes something other than a chair. Remove the back and you have a stool, expand the seat to more than one and it is a sofa, a settee, a bench, something other than a chair. And so it is with marriage. The essence of marriage is that it is a union between one man and one woman, anything else is not marriage. If you attempt the change the definition to fit other circumstances, you no longer have a marriage, as was the case with the chair and stool. Applying the same logic to the union of two men or two women, or one man and two women, or two men and two women, or two women and one man, or one man and a one penguin, it may be possible to create a union for these situations, but it would be necessary to create a new concept for such unions such as "civil union" to cover two men or two women. But it is a non sequitur to call such a union a marriage. This is not to say there is something immoral or illegal about such an arrangement, it is simply not a marriage......by definition.
Maybe marriage isn't a chair - it's a seat. And you can have many kinds of seats. And even then, you're talking about item to which you've assigned a definition. Maybe I think that item is a chair and there are many types of chairs, including a seats, couches, stools.
And maybe the difference is that we're talking about people and not inanimate objects. We're talking about an idea, the definition of which can expand and change as humans evolve.
In any case, let's all have civil unions and get the state out of the business of "marriage."
Post a Comment