Friday, May 29, 2009

Me and Prop 8

Ok, so my next post will make one of my two readers kinda mad.
So Prop 8 failed in California, leaving the ban of same sex marriages in effect. I have no problem with this. I also have two different views on it, but both share the same general point: I am against same sex marriages.

Secular :
I am not saying that I oppose same sex couples. I do not. I feel that everybody has a right to live the way they live, for whatever reason, as long as it does not interfere with my right to do the same. I just think that trying to force the government to recognize this type of marriage as legitimate is wrong. This is the line in the sand. It has to be drawn somewhere.
As a nation, we need to understand that the idea of “tolerance” has gotten way WAY out of hand. The morals that make our country strong have got to have a limit or they never really existed at all.
Many states in the US banned interracial marriages prior to the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia. That ruling was a move in the RIGHT direction, as the color of skin is not a reason for discrimination. An Asian woman will be able to give birth to a white man’s child. The morals of the country were not diminished by this move. The only thing that was hurt was a dying prejudice that was out-dated anyway.
The difference between that and this is fundamental: same sex marriages cannot CREATE children.

From what I can see, the driving forces for the movement to legalize same sex marriages are the financial/legal benefits and protections and for validation. The basic fact is that same sex marriages ARE different from as they will not keeping the family name going – not to mention the propagation of the human race - never produce a child, etc . A marriage, as defined by the primary or first definition at http://dictionary.reference.com, is as follows:

The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

In fairness, there is this definition as well, listed fourth:

A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

I just want to point out that all of the definitions that deal with this type of definition use the phrase “husband and wife”. Says a lot, huh?

The legal/financial perks are in the form of tax rates and adjustments, insurance coverage, death benefits; the list goes on and on. If we set it up to allow this type of union to be recognized and receive these perks, what will come next? You have to be insanely naive to think that this will not lead to other people wanting these advantages for THEIR “special unions”. Do we allow polygamy? Is that going to be the next sub-group to yell discrimination? What about cousins? Or parents and children? I am not trying to be gross, but some people react with the same disgust to homosexuality as you just did to those examples (extreme as they may seem).

It’s a matter of consent! Two adults should be allowed to do whatever they want if they are both consenting!
Yes and no. Yes, two people OF PROPER AGE AND MENTAL ACUITY can consent to almost anything. The “no” comes in when it infringes on other people’s rights or presents a lewd or obscene public display. But consent has absolutely fuck all to do with this issue. The behavior is not illegal. You can have sex with anyone PROPER AGE AND MENTAL ACUITY that is willing to have sex with you. The marriage is not even illegal. It is simply unrecognized by the government. If you and your friends and family recognize it and accept it and deal with you and your significant other as if the two of you were legally married, what difference does it make what the government says? I, personally, have never needed a governmental validation of my feelings for or against anyone or anything. Why is this validation, or lack thereof, such a huge hairy deal? I love this or that is made no more or less valid by a nod of approval from Uncle Sam.

Biblical:
In Romans 1:26-27 (EMTV), Paul writes:
For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Really? Do I need to say anymore? It is a lust that is against nature. Simply put, a spit in the face of God, saying, “I can personally improve upon your creation. Check this out! I can stick this in here! Who needs women?”

Conclusion:
While I could not care less about a person’s sexual orientation, these are my beliefs. Those friends I have that are homosexual know me but may not know these views. They were not judged on their sexuality. They were judged on their humanity. They are my friends because I see more in them than their sexual orientation. I see more in them than their religious, political, ancestral or ethnic characteristics. And they see more in me than a condemning bible-thumper because they know me and know that I am not one to cast aspersions on others when I am so fatally flawed myself.

Thank you for your time.