Saturday, November 19, 2005

Clarification of gay marriage position.

I have got more comments about the Prop 2 post than any other. I don't think I made myself clear. I will address a couple items and then clarify my position. Just to make it known, I don't see how gay marriage is anything other than a property rights issue. I will give reasons why. So, put your politically correct bigotry aside and read ahead with a true open mind. And, so you don't get lost, my main point is, work with what you've got.

First, why are politically correct people so intolerant of bible thumpers? Just because they are different from you? Why don't bigots get the same protection and respect as politically correct people? How is it that it's OK to hate some closed-minded people and not others? Radical muslims (Koran-thumping) who are bent on killing you and your family somehow cause PC people to bend over backwards to show that Islam is accepted and celebrated. There are many other religions out there that don't raise a stink about Christianity. They just go about their business. If it weren't against Christian values, you'd see people lined up to strap on bombs to destroy people and things with which they disagree. Of course, it's not the Christian thing to do, especially for the bible thumpers. The reason why there is such hatred towards Christianity is because it is winning in the arena of ideas and values. Most of the hatred comes from the inside, people who disagree with a few minor points like gay marriage.

I don't know about other denominations, I'm Catholic. The Catholic church is not a democracy. You believe the doctrine and are Catholic, or you don't and are not Catholic. There is no voting or propositions made about what the church believes. When the church does change something, it is after it is clearly evident that its position was in error. Many many years later. The world has to change before the church does. I looked up the church's doctrine on this issue. It is, love gay people with the same respect and dignity as anybody else. They can't help being gay. They are still expected to avoid sin. So, being gay, according to the Catholic church, is NOT a sin. Some gay behaviors, however, are sins. This is what the church opposes. Your bigoted mind is probably thinking: WELL THE CHURCH IS WRONG! Again, who are you to decide what a group of people ought to think? Especially a group of people who outnumber you and outvote you? Shouldn't you be thinking about winning their hearts and minds rather than force them to oppose you? If you oppose a majority, you'll get stomped. That's what's happening to the gay community. They are trying force people to accept too much too soon. It's been less than a century since being openly gay is generally accepted. In time, it may not be a big deal.

It used to be that teen pregnancy or having kids out of wedlock was a cause for shame. The reason behind the cause for shame hasn't changed. However, the social stigma is not as bad. The reason for teen pregancy or having illegitimate children was and is bad is because it is tough for a single woman to bring up a child on her own. It is a hardship that the mother and her family must bear. Traditionally, it's something that the mother and father endure together. Women were not able, until last century, earn as much as men. It was just stupid for a girl to have doomed herself to a life of poverty and dependence on others by getting pregnant. In the present day, women have better opportunities to succeed despite being a single mom. Therefore, the stigma is not as bad as it used to be. Sure, life is not easy. But things aren't as bad as they used to be. A woman's chances of survival being unwed with children are much better now. Our ideas and hearts changed. There are so many unmarried women that it's not a big deal. Of course, women who sleep around and have kids with different fathers don't garner any respect. A single mom can still redeem herself by raising a good child and contributing to society in a positive way.

Similarly, being gay still has some social stigma. It's not the right time to be trying to force things. This will only harden minds and hearts against you. Gay people should go to work, get a hobby, live a decent and stable life as an openly gay person. In time, they will become accepted by the community. When nobody cares about sexuality, that's the time to ask for changes. Nobody will care because you have been an outstanding citizen. Just like with the slut in the previous paragraph, if you are gay and sleep around with different people all the time, don't expect the community to respect you. For every decent gay or lesbian couple that exists and is accepted, there are a bunch of jerks who undermine the positive influence with their in-your-face militancy.

Seeking black rights was not the same as seeking gay rights today. This is a bad comparison. Gay people are not denied voting rights, education, justice, or the right to work amongst other things. Gay people have not been treated as less than human. Last I checked, gay people have always had all of these fundamental rights. I'll be the first to tell you that racial discrimination was wrong. I'll also point out that discriminating against gay people is unjust. But this is an apples and oranges issue. A majority of Americans wanted to guarantee equality for all African Amerians on the basis that they are human beings who deserve the same respect and dignity. A majority was necessary to be able to force the stalwarts to go along. And we did.

A majority of Americans do NOT want gay marriage. The only way to change this is for gay couples to show the country that there is injustice. Simply stating that so and so can do something and we can't is not an argument. Native Americans can legally grow and use peyote and I can't. Congress can vote themselves a pay raise, and I can't. Rich people can invest in private offerings and I can't. Many things are unfair. I accept them and do my best with what I have. If I can't have peyote, I'll have to continue drinking beer. If I can't vote myself a payraise, I'll have to work more. If I can't invest in private offerings, I'll have to look for other investments. If I were gay and couldn't marry, I would just live with somebody. If I wanted a ceremonial type thing, I'd invite my friends and family to attend a public announcement of my lifelong love and commitment to my partner and a chicken dinner. If the state doesn't recognize it, so what? Everybody who would matter to me would have witnessed my promise. I would do it out of love. You don't need a license to love. Everybody who cares about me would then know that I am exclusively committed to my partner. Do the best with what you have. If all you have is contracts, power of attorney, wills, inheritance through children, business partnerships, and other legal remedies, use them. Eventually, a good lawyer will win a case to establish precedent to ensure the same rights and courtesies if not marriage itself.

You want the church to recognize it? Tough luck. Start your own church. You either accept what the church is, or you don't. You can't say that you accept what it is and expect it to be something else. Otherwise, everybody would define what is and isn't right or wrong for themselves. Then why bother having a church? You can't argue that God wants you to be happy. If you are gay, you'd have been born female; if you are lesbian, you'd have been born male. God had different plans for your anatomy. I think we are expected to be humble, accept what God gives us, and do the best with what we have. If you say that God is wrong, they why bother with church?

The easiest explanation for being against gay marriage is this. There are cats and there are dogs. If we pass a law that cats are now dogs, that doesn't make cats into dogs. We must treat cats like dogs, but cats won't act like dogs. They will act like cats. They will eat like cats. And they will still be cats even if we call them and treat them like dogs. The same is true for gay marriage. We can pass a law that gay couples can marry. There is already a definition for marriage. Gay couples would be treated like married couples, but they would not be the same as the previously defined marriage. There will be many similarities between a traditional marriage and a gay marriage, just as cats and dogs have similarities, but they won't be the same. So, it's pointless.

If gay marriage is about love, you don't need laws. The government does not give rights, God gives us rights. The Government only takes rights away, even when it intends to do the opposite. Make up your own marriage and certify it through some organization that you create. This way, you can rack up statistics and show the world that you aren't that much different. That could help the argument.

Finally, a point that just occurred to me as to a difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. Homosexuality is not reproducible. A gay couple cannot give birth to or knowingly adopt a gay child. It's statistically improbable, but not impossible. Married couples are likely to have straight children with the small chance of having a gay one. A straight man or woman probably will be at a loss when trying to help a gay child deal with the difference. It's much easier to teach a boy traditional boy things and a girl traditional boy things because we have millenia of tradition from which to draw. The same holds true for gay couples helping a gay child cope. They are better suited. Fortunately for gay couples, they are far outnumbered and were raised in traditional households so that they can know normal and customary behavior for non-gay boys and girls. It would be ideal if gay couples had gay children for the sake of continuity of the culture. You know, actions like passing on family traditions and customs are what marriage provides. In this way, we could treat the gay community like a people or culture much like we treat people of a certain religion or country with their set identity and customs. The gay community is not the same, however, due to the erratic origins of all its members. All with different customs and cultures. They lack the continuity that traditional couples have. As it is, being different from the majority, there is a tendency to want to do away with most customs. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Gay couples need to accept that they are different and have different challeges. Even if they could marry, they would still be a minority and would face bigotry. They would still not be able to have children with each other, they'd need the intervention of a third person or would need to adopt. There is nothing normal about the whole idea. The best that can be achieved is some acceptance.

I accept that if two guys or two girls fancy each other and want to live together forever, it's their decision. Do it. With the challenges of everyday life being gay, marriage is the least of their problems. They are better off paired up to help each other through the challenges than toughing it alone. I am sympathetic to their plight. I just don't accept that a gay marriage is the same as my marriage with my wife. Now, you can get upset and hate me, somebody who wouldn't mind inviting a gay couple to dinner if they were good friends. By hating, you alienate me and others who would treat gay couples with dignity and respect. You basically lump me and people like me with the zealous bigots. If you do that, how can I respect you? I am offering acceptance of who you are and your desire for love and companionship. I simply don't agree that it should be called marriage. Such a minor point of disagreement surely can't outweigh my compassion? But that's the way liberals work, you either agree or you're a bigot. Why help people who are ungrateful for what they already have?

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...