Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The President and Homosexual Marriage

Hoo boy... Well, this will probably make unpopular with a number of people. As long as I tick people off on both sides I'm good, right?

As to our dear leader's recent statement that he is for the legalization of gay marriage:

He has a right to his opinion. Do I think he's wrong? Absolutely. However, it's not like this is a big shock to anybody, it's probably better that he not beat around the bush. That being said, will that be the new stick? Vote Obama or you're a homophobe? Who knows.

As to the rightness or wrongness of legalizing "homosexual marriage"... There are basically three positions I see in this issue: (1) Yes Gay Marriage is fine, legalize it; (2) no Gay Marriage is not fine, ban it; (3) the government shouldn't be dictating marriage laws, regardless of my opinions on Gay Marriage. Given the current government we have, this specific government, I am relatively (80~90%) convinced that three is the only tenable position to hold.

As to the first, the legalization of gay marriage has already driven the most successful institutions in the foster care industry out in many states (i.e. Catholic Charities). Legalizing gay marriage means that not fostering to homosexual couples is an illegal discrimination, forcing a religious institution to violate its tenants or get out. Yeah... We really want to be in that place again...

The second option is favored by many conservatives, but remember that one of the big reasons for the government to issue marriage licenses was to prevent interracial marriage. If we give the government it's head now and say that it has the right to dictate who can and cannot get married, what is to prevent an expansion of that in the future? More than that, given that some religions (e.g. certain brands of Mormonism) permit and even promote plural marriage, is that not prohibiting free exercise?

The third option is to my mind not ideal, but the best option that limits the scope of the government's power to interfere in out lives. Consider, if gay marriage was legalized, how long would it be before the Catholic Church (or protestant churches who consider homosexuality to be disordered) started to be attacked? How long before the law suits against Catholic (and other) business owners who weren't comfortable contracting for the marriage ceremonies of people whose marriages they considered unnatural?

How long before the government decides to start using marriage licenses as a carrot and stick in a bigger social engineering program?

No amount of legislation is going to prevent homosexual fornication, just as no amount of it has prevented heterosexual fornication. Laws are not the issue here: the sickness is in our culture, and it I'm not just talking about homosexuality.

But therein lies a major problem in what many conservatives seem to be arguing for, and the reason why they are so easily contradicted on this issue. While "tu quoque" (you too! - pointing out hypocrisy) is a fallacy and does not disprove an argument, holding a position while acting in a manner contrary makes you very unconvincing, and is like building on sand.

Conservatives have no room to decry "homosexual marriage" while they treat marriage in general with contempt and scorn. While they contracept their marriages, they have no foundation. While they live together and fornicate before marriage so that the wedding is a formality, they have no foundation. While they marry and divorce each other on a whim, treating it as no more binding that a junior high relationship, they have no foundation.

Our country needs a strong foundation, and that foundation is the family. The family has always been the foundation of society, it existed before society, and it will persevere through the dissolution of society. To be sure, the "homosexual marriage" movement threatens that foundation, and needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the people arguing against "homosexual marriage" have been complicit in undermining that same foundation from which they are attempting to stop unnatural marriage.

Matthew 7:3-5

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

2 comments:

  1. your problem seems to be that marriage isnt really a religious thing anymore, its a legal one. you have given no reasons why homosexuals should be denied these rights, and i dont think there are any. its discrimination, and that isnt allowed in this country, as it shouldnt be.

    having said that, i dont think religious institutions should have to accept them, or perform them in their churches. if churches really want to be that shallow, homosexuals can find a church that isnt and give their money to them. although if you ask me, this shouldnt happen in a place that is supposedly all about love. individuals can be as bigoted as they want, except if they are lawmakers. luckily, churches do not make the laws in this country, as they shouldnt.

    i am glad you didnt bring up civil unions in this. my response to that is always 'why not give blacks separate drinking fountains?' as its really the same argument. its segregation. not allowed in this country, as it shouldnt be.

    you seem to have hinted at the marrying goats argument. this fails as well, because goats dont have the same rights as people in this country.

    one of your problems is with divorce rates. if you look it up, homosexuals actually have a very much lower rate than heterosexuals, and the divorce rates are lower in states with homosexual marriage.

    another argument you gave is the family argument. this fails as well, because again, marriage is a legal thing. this shouldnt be a reason not to give them to homosexuals. also, if anything, this is an argument against homosexual adoption. however, research shows that while kids do need role models from both sexes, these do not need to be from the parents. you also never seem to hear people arguing against single parents.

    oh, and as your arguments are probably religion based, i would like to add that the bible has 6 admonishments for homosexuality and 362 for heterosexuality. and also...

    'a marraige shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. if she is not, she shall be excecuted.' deuteronomy 22: 13-21

    ReplyDelete
  2. I considered doing a point by point reply to your post, but decided against it because it became apparent on reading it that you did not reply to what I wrote, but rather some version of me stuffed with straw. I will offer a few comments however, which may perhaps clarify precisely what I was saying.

    First, I do not in this post argue against homosexual marriage, I take as an assumption that it is unnatural and not good for those involved or society as a whole. Any argument against it is mostly or completely implied, and as such cannot readily be argued against, because that was not the point of this post.

    Second, you will notice upon a more thorough reading that I have two points; 1: the government needs to get out of marriage, and 2: conservatives who support no fault divorce, or who have made a mockery out of marriage through fornication and contraception are a bigger part of the problem than any number of rainbow-flag-waving supporters of homosexual marriage could ever be. Most of this post is directed at conservatives, telling them to practice what they preach if they honestly want to "defend traditional marriage" as so many of them claim.

    Third, regarding marriage and the bible, assuming your figures are accurate, that's 362 admonitions about how a man and a woman can have sex, when they should and shouldn't, what their disposition should be, how to get married, how to love and respect each other, how to bring up children; and 6 times saying no to those who practice and promote homosexuality. It is saying to a man and a woman, "you can get married, but it will be tough - follow these rules." To a man and a man, or to a woman and a woman, it says, "you cannot get married." So why the imbalance? Because there are only so many ways to say no.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it civil, keep it thoughtful. Vulgarity will be deleted immediately. Thanks for reading!