Rence
<font color=cc00cc>Anyone who puts fashion above a
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,435
What we need to understand is that the opposition to gay marriage is an emotional one, not logical or even really religious in nature. It is just folks gut reaction and largely because in their minds "Marriage has always been this way" (which it hasn't, marriage has changed dramatically over the years). Gay marriage is a change and it takes folks a while to get used to it - and they do. The polls are showing growing support for civil unions and gay marriage over time. Any of these amendments that pass today, will be repealed in the future. In the future, these amendments will be a real embarrassment for the states that have passed them.
If the anti-gay marriage argument were truly a religious argument - those opposed to gay marriage would look at the Bible as a whole and see that it is quite a large book that discusses many many issues - and that in terms of this large book, the references that can be construed as talking about homosexuality are really very few. If homosexuality were such a big deal it would have been mentioned a lot more, it would have appeared in the ten commandments and one would think that Christ would have broached the subject at least once.
There are many other issues discussed at much greater length in the Bible, and one would think that a person who believes that their religious beliefs should be codified into a state's constitution would focus on these issues first - after all, their holy text is much clearer on many other issues. For example, the bible is pretty damn clear on divorce. It pretty much condemns divorce, one can find passages that would permit divorce in cases of adultery, but that's about the only exception. This is much more clearly stated and emphasized much more, then any supposed anti-homosexual passages. So a person who truly believed that the Bible should be the basis for our state constitutions and truly wanted to protect marriage, would instead be pushing for a constitutional amendment to totally ban divorce, except possibly in cases of adultery. But they aren't doing this - so the whole issue really isn't about religion at all, else why would the ignore so much of the Bible and focus on very few passages.
The issue of marriage is for children is also just a smoke screen. If one carries the argument to the logical conclusion than no childless couple should be allowed to be married - this would mean children first marriage second, which of course is unacceptable to them. Other choices would be to have a fertility test prior to marriage and possibly nullify childless marriages after a certain amount of time. Many people today enter into heterosexual marriage and are either unable or unwilling to have children and those opposed to gay marriage don't seem to have a problem with that. So the issue that the purpose of marriage is to produce children really doesn't seem to be their true issue.
The argument that the "ideal" environment for children is to be raised by a two heterosexual parents also doesn't really hold up. There are a lot of studies that contradict this, but even if one accepts that it is "ideal" (which I do not) it is not the "only" environment in which children can be raised. If one follows the logic of only permitting the "ideal" environment that we must stop all single parent families - if an unwed person gets pregnant, what are we to do? Forced abortion? Of course not. I guess we have to tell them that they must get married or the child will be taken from them at birth. Then where do we find the heterosexual couples to raise these children? Sure there are families that want to adopt, but not enough to take in all the children we take away from unwed mothers. I guess that families may just be forced to take on additional children so that they can have the "ideal" environment. I guess we'd have some type of system where the government mandates that heterosexual families are forced to take on additional children as the need arises. This also raises the question of what do we do when a parent dies. How long exactly do we give the surviving parent to remarry before we take the children away so that they can be raised in an "ideal" environment. If you follow this argument through to its logical conclusion you see how it just doesn't hold up. If they are willing to allow these other less than "ideal" child rearing situations to continue, we see that this really isn't the argument.
It pretty much just boils down to ignorance, fear and an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Over time logic, rational thinking, tolerance etc. will win out. Unfortunately there will be a few more amendments like amendment 2 that will be passed in the mean time.
If the anti-gay marriage argument were truly a religious argument - those opposed to gay marriage would look at the Bible as a whole and see that it is quite a large book that discusses many many issues - and that in terms of this large book, the references that can be construed as talking about homosexuality are really very few. If homosexuality were such a big deal it would have been mentioned a lot more, it would have appeared in the ten commandments and one would think that Christ would have broached the subject at least once.
There are many other issues discussed at much greater length in the Bible, and one would think that a person who believes that their religious beliefs should be codified into a state's constitution would focus on these issues first - after all, their holy text is much clearer on many other issues. For example, the bible is pretty damn clear on divorce. It pretty much condemns divorce, one can find passages that would permit divorce in cases of adultery, but that's about the only exception. This is much more clearly stated and emphasized much more, then any supposed anti-homosexual passages. So a person who truly believed that the Bible should be the basis for our state constitutions and truly wanted to protect marriage, would instead be pushing for a constitutional amendment to totally ban divorce, except possibly in cases of adultery. But they aren't doing this - so the whole issue really isn't about religion at all, else why would the ignore so much of the Bible and focus on very few passages.
The issue of marriage is for children is also just a smoke screen. If one carries the argument to the logical conclusion than no childless couple should be allowed to be married - this would mean children first marriage second, which of course is unacceptable to them. Other choices would be to have a fertility test prior to marriage and possibly nullify childless marriages after a certain amount of time. Many people today enter into heterosexual marriage and are either unable or unwilling to have children and those opposed to gay marriage don't seem to have a problem with that. So the issue that the purpose of marriage is to produce children really doesn't seem to be their true issue.
The argument that the "ideal" environment for children is to be raised by a two heterosexual parents also doesn't really hold up. There are a lot of studies that contradict this, but even if one accepts that it is "ideal" (which I do not) it is not the "only" environment in which children can be raised. If one follows the logic of only permitting the "ideal" environment that we must stop all single parent families - if an unwed person gets pregnant, what are we to do? Forced abortion? Of course not. I guess we have to tell them that they must get married or the child will be taken from them at birth. Then where do we find the heterosexual couples to raise these children? Sure there are families that want to adopt, but not enough to take in all the children we take away from unwed mothers. I guess that families may just be forced to take on additional children so that they can have the "ideal" environment. I guess we'd have some type of system where the government mandates that heterosexual families are forced to take on additional children as the need arises. This also raises the question of what do we do when a parent dies. How long exactly do we give the surviving parent to remarry before we take the children away so that they can be raised in an "ideal" environment. If you follow this argument through to its logical conclusion you see how it just doesn't hold up. If they are willing to allow these other less than "ideal" child rearing situations to continue, we see that this really isn't the argument.
It pretty much just boils down to ignorance, fear and an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Over time logic, rational thinking, tolerance etc. will win out. Unfortunately there will be a few more amendments like amendment 2 that will be passed in the mean time.
I cry a little for him.
I sure hope the more civliized areas of your state are able to convince the rest of it that this is an idiotic (this is a G rated place, right?) idea at best.
