Land of the free, except the gays
Land of the free. That’s an important statement. American ideas about freedom are exported around the world, for better or for worse. Our silly debate about whether gay people should be allowed to marry makes us all look like morons, in my opinion.
I realize that most of the people who read this blog will probably disagree with me, but it is my personal belief that adults should be treated like adults, and that government should try to stay as far out of any legal contracts between adults as possible, until there is a dispute and the courts need to get involved. Frankly, the God I believe doesn’t want me to poke my nose into other people’s business unless they represent some sort of threat to me. Gay people are pretty low on that list. In fact, the gay people I know are generally very friendly although they tend to see themselves as persecuted, which is something that they have in common with early Christians, I would imagine.
There is an entry on the whole ongoing debate over gay marriage at Hammer of Truth that I think is worth your time.
Allowing gay people to marry represents no threat heterosexual couples whatsoever. If it goes against your beliefs, then you have every right as a private citizen to proselytize up to the the tolerance level of your neighbors and local community. You are more than welcome not to practice lifestyles you disagree with, just as you don’t have to eat food you dislike. And that’s about as far as your right to discriminate against others should go, from where I stand.
America is a nation of ideas. One of the best ideas I’ve heard in America is that no one group gets to decide what God wants for the rest of us. Too bad many so-called Christians are hypocrites when it comes to forcibly inflicting their ideas about morality on others when they would fight tooth and nail if someone tried to do the same thing to them.
Perhaps we should change the moniker to Land of the Free Discriminatory Heteros.
Similar Posts:
- On marriage and fairness
- Can Muslims and non-Muslims coexist peacefully?
- Ideology matters, religion matters, culture matters
- Losing my religion
- The Caliphate: One nation, under Allah, with 1.5 billion Muslims
Print This Post
|
Amen!
Respectfully I myself Disagree.
I am not saying that I condem a Homosexual relationship.. I myself do not care what someone does in the bedroom. But my rearing in the Christian faith remains the same. Marriage is a bond between a man and a female. No matter what “enlightened” individuals say.
There is a book in the bible called Ephesians that states what Sodimites (The old term for Homosexuals) are reguarded under the “eyes of God”. But I think the Christians you are refering too reference their beliefs.
But in the end.. I do not support the Presidents push for the Consitutional Amendment. But then again.. I do not believe that homosexuals gain any special rights for their sexual preferance either.
The whole thing is mixed out of emotion and alot of hot air on both sides of the pipe.
But
The problem with reserving legal marriage for a man and a woman partnership is that there are differences in the way our laws treat a married couple. Limiting such a contract to only a man and a woman is wrong. It’s just as barring interracial marriages.
A legal adult should be abel to enter any sort of binding contract they wish to enter. There should not be protected classes of citizens who are regarded differently in the eyes of the law. That’s what marriage represents in its current incarnation.
Ah, Trevor! For the first time you’ve disappointed me. I guess I should’ve seen it coming, though, since you are a libertarian deist.
You say that the government should stay out of adults’ private lives and that gay marriage doesn’t infringe on straight people. Ok, why then doesn’t that same logic apply to a man who wants to practice polygamy, or to a man and his adult daughter who’re having consensual incest (yucky idea I know, but it happens)?
People who are so eager to change the definition of marriage have to explain to opponents like me where the cut off point is. You can’t arbitrarily decide that the arguments in favor of gay marriage just don’t apply to other minority couplings. And as for the discrimination charge, our society already restricts marriage based on age and lineage; why isn’t that discriminatory against teens or blood relatives who want to marry? If not being allowed to marry means you’re being denied a basic human right, shouldn’t ALL laws restricting marriage in ANY way be repealed? For supporters of gay marriage the answer is yes, if you’re going to be consistent.
So you see, Trevor, there’s more to the opposition to gay marriage than evil Christians trying to oppress defenseless homosexuals. Your cheap shot at Christians at the end of your post was just that, a cheap shot. I expected more from you than the trite when-all-else-fails-attack-the-Christians tactic*. Still, I respect your right to voice your opinion; after all, that–not gay marriage!– is what you’re fighting for in Iraq.
Stay safe soldier, and keep it RA!
P.S.
Loved your post on Michael Berg. He deserves to be berated, so keep up the good work!
Did I spell “tactic” right?
Dwana,
I’ll bite.
I think polygamists are silly, but I support their right to practice their silly lifestyle. As far as I’m concerned, that’s between the people in the relationship. Sounds very complicated and hard to maintain though. One wife seems like plenty, speaking from experience.
Restricting marriage based on age prevents young people from being taken advantage of. An arbitrary age of consent is crude, but workable as a legal device No one suffers a lifetime of castigation as a result of age of consent laws and assuming a sixteen year old falls in love with a 19 year old in our society, then all they have to do is wait a while. Gays don’t currently have that option, or any option if they want to form a legal union to share assets. That’s what bothers me.
Exactly how many father/daughter or mother/son couples have applied for a marriage license? That’s really not a social issue anyone is seriously debating. Unless I’ve been missing something. I’m calling that one a red herring.
I don’t think I took a cheap shot at Christians. I also don’t recall calling Christians evil. I said that many Christians are hypocritical. They want to practice what they believe freely without affording that opportunity to others who are not doing them any harm. Isn’t it hypocrisy when you want a freedom for yourself (to enter into a legal contract) that you won’t afford to another?
I am a Christian, I’ll make no bones about that fact. But to be fair let’s look at the gay marriage issue from a medical perspective.
I don’t intend to gross anyone out, but I ask this in all sincerity. Can a man have sex with a man and one of them get pregnant? No. Can a woman have sexual relations with a woman and one of them get pregnant. I’m not thinking so.
Keeping in mind the fact that it is physically impossible for gay and lesbian couples to reproduce, I think it’s terrible that there is a big push to award gay couples marriage licenses. The concept of marriage is so a man and a woman can share their lives together, start a family, and their descendants can do the same.
I just think it’s wrong from a factual, scientific standpoint. I won’t even begin to mention a moral standpoint…
According to “Chris,” if you aren’t having babies, you’re immoral. That concept reminds me of some science fiction novels about totalitarian societies, like “A Handmaid’s Tale.” Marriage has a lot of other purposes besides producing children.
Actually gay marriage would make it easier for gay people to adopt and raise children…which probably makes “Chris” cringe…but it’s a better alternative than foster care. I know a gay couple who adopted a baby. They seem to be doing a good job.
I believe I posted my point of view from a scientific standpoint. Not once did I say that “if you’re not having babies, you’re immoral.” I merely stated that from a scientific viewpoint, the concept of a man and woman coming together and producing a child basically continues the life cycle. Men cannot reproduce period, and women can’t reproduce from having sexual relations with other women. It’s just scientific fact…
I should have stated my point clearer in my original post. Sorry about that. I tried to post without posting my personal feelings on it because I wanted some sort of fact to back me up, and I didn’t want to post my personal feelings on the issue here, detracting from the original post.
Chris,
My wife and I have been married 8 years, and we haven’t yet produced a child. My wife is 45 and it’s unlikely a baby is in our future at this point. Should we be forced to adopt or have our marriage legally absolved?
Christianity is 2,000+ years old, and during it’s history, ideas about what’s acceptable have changed drastically. If I’m not mistaken, the Bible clearly indicates that God’s children, whom I’m told by that book we all are, used to practice polygyny. Are those people burning in hell for it?
What bothers me most is so many individual Christians are willing to claim they understand God’s will and are willing to use force to make the rest of us follow it.
Self-defense is one thing, but keeping gays from getting married isn’t a defensive tactic, it’s offensive – unless someone is trying to force YOU to marry a gay person against your will.
Imagine the uproar if gay people could reproduce.
Dale,
Science has already made that possible. Gays have children all the time using donor eggs or sperm. It’s only going to get more complicated.
The 21st Century is going to be the century of shattered beliefs and new paradigms. Six years in to the new century, we’re having many of our dearest beliefts challenged. Humanity has to mature or it will destroy itself.
Hey Trev!
I’ll bite back!
First, it’s good to finally see a supporter of gay marriage acknowledge that if you change marriage for gays you have to change it for polygamists, too (even if you think they’re silly). The problem is you arbitrarily stopped there.
If consent makes a sex act right (and that’s the underlying belief of the gay rights movement), and if every sex act must be approved of by the state or else the state is guilty of discrimination, then you must let a father/daughter or mother/son(or father/son, mother/daughter) couple marry. Such unions wouldn’t be common, but that’s the point. Gays claim that denying them legal marriage is discriminatory because they’re a minority; people who practice incest are also a minority, so what’s to stop them from using the same arguments that gays use? Nothing.
Ditto for teens. Age of consent laws are to protect teens from potential exploitation, but we’re increasingly becoming a society that takes it for granted that teens can and do consent to sex. So, if a teen is old enough to consent to sex with another teen, why isn’t he or she old enough to consent to sex, or marriage, with an adult? I’m not saying that’s a good thing. I’m saying that a society that allows gay marriage can’t object to teen marriage, or polygamy, or incest, or pedophilia, or any other minority sexual behaviour without being grossly inconsistent. I don’t want that kind of anything goes society, but that’s where legalizing gay marriage will lead us. It’s already happening in Holland, where it’s legal for adults to have sex with 12 years olds. Sorry, Trevor, but that’s not my kind of maturity.
SSS!
Dwana,
There are several flaws in your argument.
1) Pregnancies from incest often result in severely handicapped children and that is the reason marriage is forbidden to incestual couples and the reason such relationships are taboo in most societies around the world. So incestual marriage is not the same as gay marriage, since gay people cannot have children from their union.
2) Sexually active teens have parents. Parents bear the primary responsibility for dealing with their children’s behavior. I don’t feel the need to involved you and I unless the teens are somehow causing an issue for you and I with their behavior.
You say it’s legal in Holland for adults to have sex with 12-year-olds. What does that have to do with allowing gays to marry in the United States so they can enjoy the same legal protections that hetersexual couples enjoy?
Frankly, heterosexual couples are doing a terrible job with the institution of marriage. Maybe if we let gay people marry, national divorce rates will go down.
That’s the real problem here – people are so willing to manage other people’s lives via their right to vote. That’s not what freedom is. Unless you can demonstrate how gay people are using force or fraud against you in their desire to marry, I have to respectfully disagree that letting them do so will lead to a rise in incest, pedophilia or any other morally outrageous behavior as you suggest.
Either way, I would say that we should leave it up to the states to decide this issue.
The arguments against gay marriage remind me a lot of the fear-based propaganda that was used to derail the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s. People like Phyllis Schlafly were claiming we would all have to use unisex public bathrooms if the ERA was passed. Needless to say, that was ridiculous. Just like claiming allowing gay marriage would mean we’d have to let fathers marry daughters, etc. It also reminds me of the fear-based propaganda that was unsuccessfully used to attempt to derail the Americans With Disabilities Act. People claimed business would go under because they wouldn’t be able to meet its requirements. The ADA was passed and that didn’t happen. It’s as if people think these basic laws about equal rights will somehow snowball into something that no one would approve of…it’s paranoid.
Trevor,
I appreciate your kind remarks about gay people.
Although I am gay, I don’t think most people see me as friendly. In fact, I’m a crank and a recluse, and I’m pretty lukewarm about gay marriage.
Your blog’s typical reader is probably somewhat more reasonable and tolerant than the average person, but even so their sentiments seem to be anti-gay on the whole. The fact that gay folks spend their whole lives among people like these, that don’t like or respect them, probably accounts for the feelings of persecution you’ve observed.
Anyway, I enjoy reading your blog.
Hey Soldier! Boy, you really stirred things up with this gay marriage business!:)
I appreciate your point of view, but I still think I’m right.
You wrote that incestuous marriages wouldn’t be allowed because children of such unions are likely to be deformed. Maybe that’s true, but most deformed children are born to unrelated couples. So your argument, Trevor, is more about eugenics than marriage.
And as for what the laws in Holland have to do with gays marrying in America, I was making that point that a society that accepts gay marriage has no basis for objecting to any kind of consensual sex act; also, Holland is the country that American liberals always hold up as a utopia that we should emulate. I just thought people should know what our future will look like.
Gotta go back to work. SSS!