I was recently asked by a friend to consider supporting an effort to keep a law from passing that would legally divorce homosexual men and women that had formed legal marriages. My friend included the following link:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/Divorce
My response to my friend follows (feel free to disagree and comment if you would like):
"I just wanted to respond to your request regarding the petition related to homosexual marriage. It was a cool and touching video. Catchy song too. I want to preface what I have to say by telling you that I believe very strongly that persecuting a person for his beliefs or his state of being is uncharitable, often hypocritical, and un-Christian. It can be evil even when done under the auspices of Christianity. Simultaneously, however, the unbiased acceptance of all beliefs is unnecessary and sometimes potentially dangerous.
I wanted to respond to your email in a purely logical sense, neglecting morality and emotions per se. Not that I think morality or emotions to be unimportant, but they are probably not effective arguments, either pro or con, in this case [since most homosexuals probably do not consider homosexuality to be a moral issue]. First, let me say that I don't agree with this "divorce" idea of Ken Starr's (though I haven't studied his motivation or his argument for it), however, neither do I support gay marriage at this time.
I find it hard to actively support gay marriage for the following reasons which you are welcome to debate me on if you wish because it's important to me to solidify and challenge my beliefs in this way:
1. I do not find that homosexuals are treated with inequality. If anything, this lifestyle is abstracted and glorified in our society.
2. Homosexuals are not a minority in the way that a certain race can be a minority or a so called "protected class"; the logical difference being the concept of choice. There is an obvious sense in which homosexuals choose their actions and outcomes whereas a black man doesn't choose his pigmentation. This choosing is where morality enters in, though there is no need to mention that here. The point being that there is no morality without choice which is why it is obvious that being black, white, or whatever cannot be inherently good nor evil.
3. It seems intuitive that homosexuality is nothing more than a psychological reaction (which may or may not include some genetic predisposition) which precedes choices which either reinforce or redirect homosexuality. The question is: a reaction to what?
4. It seems biologically obvious that homosexuality is an anomaly which serves no evolutionary purpose which is further evidence that it is a misdirected reach for the basic human sexual and companionship needs.
5. Finally, regarding homosexual marriage; it seems to me that this concept is, in a way, analogous to me wanting to marry two women. I may feel very strongly that I must marry them both, however, this is neither legal nor necessary. My rights are not being oppressed because I have the same rights as everyone else. Similarly, homosexuals have all of the same rights that heterosexuals do. There is some sense in which gay marriage is a perversion of marriage. Once redefined, marriage will be increasingly more malleable, incorporating beliefs further and further from its original meaning. The key is that supporters of gay marriage must believe the assumptions that homosexuality is both natural and unintentional from a biological, psychological, and spiritual standpoint. I am not convinced of that at this time.
I appreciate you thinking of me for this, and I'm sorry I can't support you on this particular thing right now. Hope you're doing great, and I'll be happy to discuss things further with you if you like."
From a certain political standpoint (small-goverment/libertarian), it can be and has been argued that the legal concept of marriage should be done away with in favor of so-called domestic partnerships. The idea being, the government recognizes for tax, estate, medical, etc purposes binding relationships that are not strictly a-man-and-a-woman. The concept of marriage, then, is left to religious organizations to determine. The First Amendment allows each religious group to determine their stance independently of every other religious group. (What you do if you're an atheist couple and want to call yourself married, I don't know.) I do note that a campaign is going on in California attempting to do exactly this.
ReplyDeleteBeing pre-disposed to the small-government school of thought, the idea appeals to me on those grounds alone. From a practical, real-world standpoint, I'm not sure how that idea would actually play out. I haven't thought through the ramifications of it at all, and therefore I currently have no opinion on the matter. I really don't believe that the American public are willing to accept this idea just yet, or maybe ever. I'm not sure I'm willing to consider it seriously. But it is something that's out there being floated.
I'm surprised lately at what the American public has been willing to accept. Obviously gays should not be persecuted. However, I think the question is: should they receive special recognition? In other words, if I start a group of people that want to marry their dogs, and there are like millions of us, then should I get special recognition by the state? Should I be able to file a joint tax return with my spouse, Wolfy? Should I be entitled to legal unions and be able to adopt children? If I die, should my estate not go to Wolfy? And if Wolfy gets a neighbor's dog pregnant, should I not be able to divorce him for infidelity and get half his stuff and alimony from his dog biscuit commercials?
ReplyDelete