Banning Gay Marriage @ MindSay

Okay, the debate as to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry is one that often gets convoluted into many different smaller debates such as: what constitutes "traditional" marriage?  Is it a relationship based upon love?  A relationship based upon creating a family?  A relationship based on sex?  Different people at different times would say different things.  Marriage doesn't belong to the religious... it is an institution that has been around for pretty much ever.  The Bible seems to say that pagan marriages are just as valid as believer's marriages.  But should two men or two women be allowed to marry?  Well, let's see... states have always told us who we can and can't marry.  For a while there, in a few states you could marry your first cousin.  But not anymore.  It's never been allowed for brother and sister to marry.  But why not?  Is this only a case of looking after possible offspring-defect of the incestual relationship?  What about if one sibling was sterile?  They wouldn't be allowed to marry... why? 

What about men who wanted to take multiple wives?  There are still those old-timey Mormons who still take multiple wives... and the government's after them.  Why?  They are presumably all willing parties, willing to share their mate.  Shoot, it's a very traditional form of marriage.  But it's illegal. 

What about if a man wanted to marry his pet?  (I've heard of it done in other countries).  But what if a man truly thought that his deceased wife was reincarnated into this new pet he's gotten?  Shouldn't he be allowed to marry his pet, because after all it is, at least in his belief, his newly reborn wife.  Who is the government to tell him that he can't fulfill his belief? 

Or what if a man wanted to marry his dog, who's shown him loyalty and friendship?  Presumably, the dog loves his master... what's to stop him from marrying the dog?

I know I've gotten more and more ridiculous with my examples.  But they show precedent that the government prevents certain people from marrying other people (and animals/things).  Part of that reason is taxes... but another part is that it is the case that the government legislates morality.  If it had been a Christian tradition to commit human sacrifice and had been practiced in Europe and the settlers here practiced it, it could probably be asserted that, at least for a while, human sacrifice would have been legal in this country.  It is however among Christian tenets, to not steal, to not murder, etc.  Those are moral things that are legislated.  There are also some (many) that are not legislated for, IE: adultery.  Some (as in sodomy laws) are legislated for but are not enforced.

We should ask what should the government be allowed to prevent us from doing.  It's illegal to commit suicide... then again, you can't be punished if you do it.  But why's it illegal?  It's a willing participation in an act that bodily affects only yourself.  But the government tells you that you can't do it.

The government is supposed to be an extension of the people's will.  Largely many of the tenets of law that affects morals are based on Judeo-Christian Scripture (because that's how it was in Europe and that carried over here, not because the Bible is used as a government authority on what's right and wrong).   The morality of the Bible (as it's called) is largely reflected in many aspects of Western culture.  (Some of these aspects are ignored, or misinterpreted in law, which leads to claims of hypocracy against certain religious support of legislation.)  But the culture of the West, which may I remind you was once referred to as "Christendom," has a tradition of proscribing certain activities that they deem inappropriate for societal norms.  Sodomy, fell into this category, and thus there are/were laws against it.  Incestual marriage fell into this category... Murder (which tends to fall into most cultural proscriptive law) also falls here. 

Now the argument between the pro-gay-marriage and the anti-gay-marriage groups fall here: in defining what is and is not appropriate for societal norms.  Those who want to hold to "traditional" values and the "traditional" definition of marriage are not suggesting that we revert to polygymy and arranged marriages, but rather the traditional Western view of Christian marriage, one man, one woman.  Among this group there are differing opinions of marriage, but in general, these want something akin to what I've briefly described.

The pro-gay-marriage group believes that the government, and the religious should not have the right to tell them that two men or two women can't marry.  They believe that society should be inclusive to various differing forms of lifestyles that are not overtly harmful to others around them. 

So where to draw the line?

Many religious would want to enforce the sodomy laws and prosecute the offenders (homosexual and heterosexual).  But personally, I don't think the government has a right in my or anyone else's bedroom... not in this country anyway.  Besides, if these religious proponents of this want to follow Biblical guidelines they need to support legislation that requires capital punishment for proven homosexuals.  Many of these same religious groups are not apt with tactful arguments against homosexual marriage... and are in great part mistaken about Biblical narratives (particularly Sodom and 'Amorrah) where they boldly make Biblical proclaimations that are unjustifiedly out of context.  Much of these groups are the epitome of what many call "homophobic."  There's no doubting that they fear what effect homosexuals will have on the place in which they live, but is that fear justified?  Sure, if they fear living in a land of moral corruption (their morals tell them that homosexuals are indeed corrupt) they have every right to be scared of homosexuals.  They don't fear a physical persecution from this minority, but that's not what they are worried about.  And unfortunately, a homosexual doesn't have to do anything but exist to drive these people mad.  You might fault these groups' idealogy for being "homophobic."  But in this country, they've got that right, correctly or incorrectly placed.

The people of this country are supposed to have the right to rule by election of government.  The government represents (or is supposed to represent) the will of the people.  To avoid the "tyranny of the majority" we have the courts, which uphold (or are supposed to uphold) the constitution of the United States.  People in many states have chosen to ban gay-marriage.  Some proponents of gay-marrage say that these bans violate the constitution and supress the civil rights of a particular group of people.  But is it a right in this country for a man to marry a man or a woman marry a woman?  Is there any precedent for this?  I don't think so.  So first, there must be a redefinition of marriage as far as the government is concerned, and then we still have the slippery slope of marriage legislation.  If two men can marry, then polygymy should likewise be in, as well as cousins marrying and brother and sister, and father-daughter combos.  Then, after all of those are found constitutional, we can move on to those rare, rare, cases where folks want to marry their pets.

The argument might seem ridiculous... and in a way it is.  And sadly, I've hardly touched on any of the meat of the controversy.  But the government has always told us who we can and can't marry.  Sure, the government can be fought... but it is supposed to be an extension of the people's will... and by votes, it appears that gay-marriage is not in favor.  The courts can overturn that if they find the constitution has been violated, but nevertheless, society has spoken overwhelmingly against gay-marriage in many places.  Whose right is it to set the societal norms anyway?  Is it the majority or the minority?  I'm not arguing that the societal norms are necessarily correct and moral... but that is a secular idea anyway.  I thought these secular types decided everything by popular vote.  And whatever popular vote decided was truth...

I guess not.

 

 

P.S.  I suppose I'll have to discuss more of my own views in the replies as I'm too lazy to worry about them here.  Because most of us know I oppose things religiously before politically.

So awhile ago, a friend I made in one of my classes revealed to me that she does not like gay people, and she wants to take away someone's right because of her religion (which really has no place in discussion about someone's rights). In short, she wants to ban gay marriage.

Here's our following discussion:

Me: Do you think everyone should have equal rights?
Her: Uh.. Can you elaborate on that?
Me: Does one person deserve the same rights as another person?
Her: ... Uh, yeah..
Me: Is a gay person not a person then?
Her: .... Well... Uh.. Gay people are weird. Like, they have weird thoughts!
Me: Do you think I'm weird?
Her: No, why?
*Class starts, I don't answer*

Now, I have two things to say to that:

1. Since when did gay = weird? I'm bisexual, and she doesn't think I'm weird (yeah, maybe I'm not ONLY attracted to females, but I would think that I still count). I think that what she said was, well, wrong. Yeah, maybe there are gay people who are weird, but hell, there are weird straight people too! Gay =/= weird.

2. How can being weird even be used as justification for taking away someone's right? How can one even decide that someone is weird- what's weird to one person may not be for another. What if I turned to Maryam and said, "You're black your skin doesn't have the same skin pigmentation as mine- you're weird, stop talking to me." She would be offended as hell. I'd like to note that I don't really believe that she's weird because of her race, I'm just making a point.

Anyways, I wish I could have said that to her, I really do, but we were watching a movie and I didn't feel like sparking an argument. Anyways, I am just shocked that someone would be so ready to take away someone's rights based on orientation.

That's what this Senate commitee is acting like - they're kindergartners and they're fighting over crayons during art time. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853948/ What they seem to forget is that they're determining the restrictions on the futures of real, live people in a nation that is supposed to support the freedoms of its citizens.

It seems like my ranting about the future of SD may be pointless now, considering that this U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages will now move on to the full Senate. Its a dark day for fostering unity within diversity.

I know I've been a bit absent lately, but with the semester finally over, and finding out later today whether I finally have a job, I hope to change that, and this will be a perfect jump-start topic.
~Ezree