The Religious Wrong--Part I Gay Marriage
The religious right again tries to impose their religious views on others by sponsoring the amendment to ban homosexual unions. Do they not realize that such an amendment would violate the first amendment. Forceful imposition of a religious ideology does constitute legislation concerning the establishment of a religion. If religion is not the reason why the religious right supports such anti-homosexual legislation then why can't they come up with a single unified reason why they want to ban it? They all have different, usually nonsensical, reasons. For instance some would claim that homosexual unions would some how degrade marriage as an institution. The basis for this argument seems to be the stereotype that homosexuals are promiscuous and incapable of commitment. This is really funny because most divorces in the USA involve straight Christian couples. The religious right would also encourage all impregnated women to marry the man that impregnated them, which they don't seem to see in most cases this leads to a divorce. The whole time the religious right would push for these events to occur they will not allow for people who are committed and not being forced into marriage or pushed into it to marry. I mean it isn't like churches would be required to perform ceremonies, I'm sure most wouldn't even care if a different legal name was given to homosexual unions as long as all the same rights and benefits were applied to homosexual unions and heterosexual marriages.
It seems more likely that the true reason the religious right wants to ban homosexual marriage is merely because they feel such unions are sinful. The only other options are that members of the religious right are so deeply disgusted by homosexuals that they are unwilling to extend the same rights to them as they extend to heterosexual couples or that they aren't comfortable enough with their own sexuality to be able to view the situation objectively. So if the last two reasons aren't the reasons that the religious right wants to ban gay marriage it must mean that it goes back to them wanting to impose their religious views on others through law. The hardest core evangelists at least admit to this being the reason that they would support a gay marriage ban, while politicians need to lie to come up with a reason to ban homosexual unions.
posted by Wakim @ 11:33 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
So I guess then, we should take away laws against murder, and theivery, and adultry too since you know, their straight from Christianity. Wouldn't want to shove our beliefs down anyone's throats!
Actually adultry isn't illegal in the United States nor is it illegal in any state I have ever lived in. Laws against murder, in most western cultures, are based on even older codes of law that had no religous basis. (Yes the Bible borrowed from these older Babylonian codes of law as well) I can also give you many reasons why such things are ethically wrong. Can you give me one secular reason why homosexual marriage should be banned? I mean murder is illegal because you are ending somebodies life...nada..no more you should be punished for that, and for the hurt you are imposing on their family. As far as theft, well if you didn't ban theft people would just go out and steal their money right back, or worse leading to a system of disorder and anarchy. Now tell me if you let Bob and Jim go out and get married is there going to be anything wrong that can happen from that? They aren't going to make you marry someone of the same sex or make your spouse marry someone of the same sex are they? You might not like it, you might find it disgusting, but is it hurting anyone? Also think about this one...our two gay men Bob and Jim live together, Bob has a good job and has benefits and all that good stuff. Jim maybe can't get as good of a job, maybe he isn't as educated as Bob, but let's say for some reason he can't get a job with nearly as good benefits or company doesn't pay hardly any of the health insurance while it pays all of Bob's. Whatever the case Jim can't get worthwhile health insurance, and he get's hurt, get's sick, whatever. Is is fair that these men who love each other and live together now can't get the medical care that Jim needs because Bob's can only get insurance for "spouse and family" and not for his domestic partner who he is not legally married to? Of course since Jim has no medical insurance and isn't making very much money at his job and isn't legally married to Bob maybe Jim can get some type of state aid to pay for his care? Well now do you believe that the state (taxpayers) should have to foot the bill to pay for Jim's medical care because he couldn't get worthwhile benefits from his job and couldn't be added to Bob's benefit package because they weren't legally married? Wouldn't this whole deal have been easier if Bob could have just added Jim to his benefit package and recieved top-notch medical care instead of whatever the state was willing to use your tax dollars to pay for?
"You might not like it, you might find it disgusting, but is it hurting anyone?"
Absolutely. It's hurting these two men. It's hurting their extended families and, Lord forbid, any children they may have/obtain. It's not a natural relationship. It's not what was intended in the creation of our human race. Allowing gay marriage has a negative effect on us all.
~Lori
Lori, so you can demonstrate this type of relationship is unnatural? How? We see homosexual behavior, and bisexual behavior in multiple other species. Male chimps and bonobos frequently engage in "penis fencing" where their rub their errect penises against each others. Female chimps and bonobos will also frequently rub eachother's genitials either with their hands or rubbing up against eachother. You also claim that this hurts their extended families, well Jim and Bob are going to be together anyway...why not actually let them be legally married. I mean if their families are so put off by this then it is simple, their families care nothing for them. Seriously, what would you do if you had a son, and that son was homosexual? Would you just disown him? Feel hurt that he engaged in such activities? I understand since you clearly have a distaste for homosexual behavior you may be dissapointed in his behavior, but would you actually be hurt by it? How are these men being hurt? They are engaging in behavior that makes both of them happy (if it doesn't make them happy then I would assume they would not be engaging in the relationship to begin with). In terms of children, well if they adopt a child isn't that child in better hands than it would be in if it stayed in a broken foster care system? Or in a group home? Or with the family that either gave up the child or had it taken for whatever reason?
Post a Comment
<< Home