daddy1gringo wrote:The problem with the pro-gay-marriage arguments here is that they are based on a false representation of the issue. The issue here is not that conservatives are asking to restrict someone’s rights and “allow or forbid marriage.” There is not now, nor is anyone seeking, a law saying that 2 gays of the same sex can’t go to their liberal clergy-person, have a marriage ceremony, consider themselves married and live together as a married couple. The issue is government recognition of it. As such, it is the gay lobby that is asking the government to step in and make a change to restrict someone’s rights.
sort of, but not quite. You see, you are talking about your right to
think and
believe but no law will, or CAN change that. The gay rights side is fighting for tangible things ... the right to have duel custody for children without having to hire a bunch of lawyers to create documents that won't necessarily be honored in every state .. the right to decide that one partner will stay home with the kids and yet still be covered by a family medical policy, etc. These things ARE curtailed and do affect the daily lives of these individuals. Sorry, but your right to believe as you will is not infringed upon, but their rights are. (and yes, I acknowledge McDeFe that you oppose ALL government recognition .. but I am addressing this post .. I addressed your points earlier.)
If the government declares that same sex relationships are equal to marriage, it forces those of us who don’t accept that to treat them as marriages.
To accept them, no. To treat them as marriages in practical ways, yes ... which is why may gay lobbies want the full "marriage" term and not some kind of "civil union". However, the bottom line is does your right to think in this way override their right to have the
practical effect of marriage. In our society, a person's right to
be and to
live as they wish generally trumps anyone else's rights to believe. Your right to think homosexual unions are wrong gets trumped up against the rights of the children in those unions to be able to form relationships with both (homosexual) parents and not have to worry that the state might decide otherwise if one gets seriously hurt or dies. Your right to think homosexuality and homosexual unions are wrong is trumped by those parent's rights and need to be able to decide their children's medical care without having to go into court each time, hire expensive lawyers, etc., etc. Even the right of a loved one to be allowed to visit under the same terms as any other family member are jeapordized in many states by this failure to legally recognize these unions. (this actually does address McDeFe's arguments ... ) These things are not mere "niceties", they are fundamental rights that the rest of us just take for granted.
Whether you consider it social or religious, the definition of “marriage” has always been between people of the opposite sex. The laws as they exist only recognize that. Even in cultures where one is allowed more than one spouse, the marriage relationship is between a man and a woman. Every healthy society has been built on that, our bodies and our psyches are designed for it. It is frequently argued that in various great empires, notably Greece and Rome, homosexuality was accepted. What is left out is that that was only in their decadent period of excessive success, followed quickly by their decline. When the society was healthy and becoming great it was based on the natural family relationship of a man and woman. The laws only determine how other issues, mainly financial, apply to that entity which already exists.
First, I do dispute your historical accuracy. Sparta celebrated male homosexuality in its prime. Greek civilization was noted for its extreme chauvenism .. and homosexuality of males was just one extention of this. Homosexuality was not the cause of the fall of the Roman or Greek Empire. It had a lot of causes, among them lead poisoning, a lack of responsibility of the nobility, etc. etc. All things to discuss in another thread, though.
The bottom line is that many things were and are either allowed or forbidden in the past. Many blame the rise of woman for degredation, others blame loss of slavery, the equalization of many races & classes for its demise. ... and, ironically, society and humanity still continue on. Part of the background fear here is the worry that approving homosexual unions will somehow "encourage" those who are not gay to become so, but the evidence contradicts this. No one is absolutely certain why folks become homosexual, but the SCIENCE indicates it is in some way biological (not necessarily genetic). It is not "catching". There WILL be an increase of homosexual
unions, unions that provide a stabilizing influence to homosexuals in much the same way that hetero marriage provides a stabilizing influence to heterosexuals. This is a
positive thing for society. There is likely also to be a
slight increase in t he number of people who ADMIT to being homosexual ... but, an overall increase in the number of homosexuals ... all evidence to date says that won't happen to any great degree. (there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule, but the key is numbers, not exceptions).
Once again, it is the gay lobby which is seeking to get the government to impose laws which will tell people what they are allowed to believe.
No, no one is telling you how to believe ... just that you must allow others to live as they like, to the extent that it doesn't harm you. Sorry, but your belief that homosexuality is wrong is no more justification for refusing to honor their unions than some folks' beliefs that races should not mix ... or that folks of different faiths should not marry ... etc. (and, yes, I have heard plenty of religious arguments for THOSE beliefs, too). ALL of the people holding those beliefs consider them equally valid, equally based upon history, religion (now THERE is a heated debate!) or other ideas. BUT societies' interest is in the practicalities. THAT is the key. Behavior can and is regulated. Belief is not. (and no, I am not saying that dislike of homosexuality makes you a racist ... just that it is a prejudice... that is, based on pre-conceived belief about a group).
