Thursday, August 04, 2005
Gay Marriage
In short, I am against the legal sanctioning of gay marriage.
I'll get right to the point. I am against gay marriage for two basic reasons. First, allowing gay marriage destroys marriage's special place in our society. In my opinion, the ideal family includes a loving mother and father raising children. By opening up the definition of marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman flies in the face of (an estimated) 99.999% of the tradition of marriage in our Western, Jeudo/Christian culture.
Second, allowing gay marriage opens the floodgates to all sorts of other 'marital arrangements' including polygamy and incest. After all, if we cannot 'discriminate' based on the gender of two people wishing to enter into 'matrimony' then why can we exclude a man and three women, four women and two men or even brother and sister? For those of you who think this argument is ridiculous I implore you to read Matthew Franck's piece at NRO.
Many people will counter by asserting that is not 'fair' to homosexuals that they are not allowed to enter into a legal contract to express their love, gain the tax benefits, etc. To those people I say, sorry. I am honestly sorry that you find the situation unfair. If there were some way to compromise, I would be happy to consider it. I do not think, however, that there is an acceptable compromise simply because any compromise leads inevitably not to a slippery slope but rather directly to the proverbial cliff. Anyone who supports gay marriage has no standing to oppose any other 'marital arrangement' someone might propose. That is a road I will not willingly travel.
I'll get right to the point. I am against gay marriage for two basic reasons. First, allowing gay marriage destroys marriage's special place in our society. In my opinion, the ideal family includes a loving mother and father raising children. By opening up the definition of marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman flies in the face of (an estimated) 99.999% of the tradition of marriage in our Western, Jeudo/Christian culture.
Second, allowing gay marriage opens the floodgates to all sorts of other 'marital arrangements' including polygamy and incest. After all, if we cannot 'discriminate' based on the gender of two people wishing to enter into 'matrimony' then why can we exclude a man and three women, four women and two men or even brother and sister? For those of you who think this argument is ridiculous I implore you to read Matthew Franck's piece at NRO.
Many people will counter by asserting that is not 'fair' to homosexuals that they are not allowed to enter into a legal contract to express their love, gain the tax benefits, etc. To those people I say, sorry. I am honestly sorry that you find the situation unfair. If there were some way to compromise, I would be happy to consider it. I do not think, however, that there is an acceptable compromise simply because any compromise leads inevitably not to a slippery slope but rather directly to the proverbial cliff. Anyone who supports gay marriage has no standing to oppose any other 'marital arrangement' someone might propose. That is a road I will not willingly travel.
Comments:
<< Home
Close Minded and Ignorant viewpoint on the issue of Gay Marriage.
Gay Marriage should not open the door for any of those strange relationships.
You need to be enlightened.
Please, get out more.
Gay Marriage should not open the door for any of those strange relationships.
You need to be enlightened.
Please, get out more.
# posted by 
: 3:19 AM
: 3:19 AM
Why is gay marriage getting so much attention. Don't we have a couple wars going on? Isn't Washington spending our childrens money like drunken sailors? Aren't people losing their jobs, their houses, and their minds? Come on America, we have more important things to worry about than gay marriage. www.QuestionItNow.com is an online community of people focused on issues that affect or will affect the lives of everyday Americans. Please consider adding a link to our blogs.
My personal views on gay marriage: I feel that two guys getting married is not threat to my marriage. Two girls getting married has the potential of being rather entertaining:)
REB 84
My personal views on gay marriage: I feel that two guys getting married is not threat to my marriage. Two girls getting married has the potential of being rather entertaining:)
REB 84
I can tell immediately from your post that you are a high school or college student. I've graded college papers and this looks like a typical writing exercise.
Your judgments about gay marriage don't really hold much water because you haven't backed them up with any evidence at all. You can't just say "I'm against gay marriage because it's bad, and the reason it's bad is because it's evil."
The same type of argument (the famous "slippery slope") you put forth has been used to deny rights to everyone who lacked them (non land-ownders, blacks, women, Jews, Italians, etc.) at one time or another in some place or another.
Opinions are based on facts, evidence, and critical reasoning. Biases are based on emotion. And no, you can't force facts to fit a preconceived notion (i.e. a bias). It will be obvious. I think this is what you've tried to do here.
You say you're sorry that your views are unfair. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that you have a bias and not an opinion, and as such it's not really valid. I'm sorry if you don't like it, that's just the way it is.
But with your good attitude I know you'll just sit back and accept the situation for what it is and not cause a stir, just like you expected others to do when you though you were right, right?
Your judgments about gay marriage don't really hold much water because you haven't backed them up with any evidence at all. You can't just say "I'm against gay marriage because it's bad, and the reason it's bad is because it's evil."
The same type of argument (the famous "slippery slope") you put forth has been used to deny rights to everyone who lacked them (non land-ownders, blacks, women, Jews, Italians, etc.) at one time or another in some place or another.
Opinions are based on facts, evidence, and critical reasoning. Biases are based on emotion. And no, you can't force facts to fit a preconceived notion (i.e. a bias). It will be obvious. I think this is what you've tried to do here.
You say you're sorry that your views are unfair. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that you have a bias and not an opinion, and as such it's not really valid. I'm sorry if you don't like it, that's just the way it is.
But with your good attitude I know you'll just sit back and accept the situation for what it is and not cause a stir, just like you expected others to do when you though you were right, right?
Dear Blogger,
One of the article groups on my site is Society ... while searching for details on weddings, I came across Gay Marriage .
It is widely accepted that a lot of the best articles on the internet is created by individuals who blog ... good quality content without the bias and waffle often found elsewhere.
Judging by your blog content I believe you are interested in weddings, and will therefore find our Society category to be of interest. I am frequently looking for individuals to submit articles on their pet subjects and help me to build the directory to everyone's benefit. As a contributor, you get the recognition of having your article published and seen by thousands of web users. The pride and satisfaction of seeing your article published in a prestige directory is hard to beat.
Few of us are gifted with the ability to write to professional standards of grammatical correctness ... as a result, many bloggers don't bother to have their articles published.
I accept articles written in an informal style that matches your personality and fits in with your article content. I also welcome articles that are uniquely based on your personal knowledge, experiences and opinions. All I ask is that your articles do not contain vulgar language, incite hatred or generally offensive.
There are no costs involved ... please come over and have a look at my blog articles directory for yourself.
Kind Wishes
Emily
One of the article groups on my site is Society ... while searching for details on weddings, I came across Gay Marriage .
It is widely accepted that a lot of the best articles on the internet is created by individuals who blog ... good quality content without the bias and waffle often found elsewhere.
Judging by your blog content I believe you are interested in weddings, and will therefore find our Society category to be of interest. I am frequently looking for individuals to submit articles on their pet subjects and help me to build the directory to everyone's benefit. As a contributor, you get the recognition of having your article published and seen by thousands of web users. The pride and satisfaction of seeing your article published in a prestige directory is hard to beat.
Few of us are gifted with the ability to write to professional standards of grammatical correctness ... as a result, many bloggers don't bother to have their articles published.
I accept articles written in an informal style that matches your personality and fits in with your article content. I also welcome articles that are uniquely based on your personal knowledge, experiences and opinions. All I ask is that your articles do not contain vulgar language, incite hatred or generally offensive.
There are no costs involved ... please come over and have a look at my blog articles directory for yourself.
Kind Wishes
Emily
# posted by : 5:26 PM
: 5:26 PM
sos.mo.gov, business services, ucc research, 20050124752K pp 1-5. I gave it to the gays too.
# posted by : 5:45 PM
: 5:45 PM
America is a young country by world standards. We have many lessons to learn still. The religious arguments being debated now with regard to practicing one's chosen faith (or no faith at all) have changed little since the arrival of the English and Europeans. Sadly, today many could not pass the citizenship test now given to immigrants. (Take the test yourself: http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/Elections/100QuestionTest.htm)
The founding of European colonies in North America coincided with the Protestant Reformation—one of the watershed events of human history. The Reformation not only split Europe along Catholic and Protestant lines, it also spawned a variety of religious groups whose members often suffered persecution from civil and religious authorities alike. In some places, members of minority faiths resented paying taxes to support the established church and being forced to attend worship services; in other places, refusing to conform to the local religion meant death.
To those suffering from harassment or maltreatment in the Old World, the New World offered space to create new societies in which they could worship without interference—like the Pilgrims and Puritans who founded New England. At the time, however, the idea that freedom of worship was a fundamental human right was in its infancy. Many of those who came to the colonies seeking the freedom to practice their particular faith were quick to deny that freedom to those whose beliefs were different—most notably the New England Puritans, who banished, punished, and sometimes executed Quakers and other non-Puritans.
In Europe, the Reformation led to a series of deadly and devastating wars of religion that brought even more refugees, like the Huguenots, to the colonies. The suffering caused by these European conflicts, as well as the intellectual advances of the 18th-century Enlightenment, led the founders of the United States to make freedom to worship the law of the land in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
And although the majority of Americans—then and now—profess Christianity, the new nation confirmed separation of church and state in a 1797 treaty with the Muslim state of Tripoli in North Africa, which stated, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
The same is happening now in 2006 as evidenced by the call by many Evangelicals for a revolution, a jihad, against non-christians who do not subscribe to the societal restrictions they derive from their bible (marriage, sexuality, etc). The coming elections will look much like the Reformation. The divide in this country between Christians trying to force their beliefs and those who do not subscribe to them is becoming larger by the day. Perhaps we should get our act together first before trying to democratize the rest of the world as this administration seems so hell bent on doing in the Arab world. The levels of intolerance (on both sides) is not only frightening but sad for its display of ignorance of the historical record and understanding of the constitution.
The founding of European colonies in North America coincided with the Protestant Reformation—one of the watershed events of human history. The Reformation not only split Europe along Catholic and Protestant lines, it also spawned a variety of religious groups whose members often suffered persecution from civil and religious authorities alike. In some places, members of minority faiths resented paying taxes to support the established church and being forced to attend worship services; in other places, refusing to conform to the local religion meant death.
To those suffering from harassment or maltreatment in the Old World, the New World offered space to create new societies in which they could worship without interference—like the Pilgrims and Puritans who founded New England. At the time, however, the idea that freedom of worship was a fundamental human right was in its infancy. Many of those who came to the colonies seeking the freedom to practice their particular faith were quick to deny that freedom to those whose beliefs were different—most notably the New England Puritans, who banished, punished, and sometimes executed Quakers and other non-Puritans.
In Europe, the Reformation led to a series of deadly and devastating wars of religion that brought even more refugees, like the Huguenots, to the colonies. The suffering caused by these European conflicts, as well as the intellectual advances of the 18th-century Enlightenment, led the founders of the United States to make freedom to worship the law of the land in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
And although the majority of Americans—then and now—profess Christianity, the new nation confirmed separation of church and state in a 1797 treaty with the Muslim state of Tripoli in North Africa, which stated, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
The same is happening now in 2006 as evidenced by the call by many Evangelicals for a revolution, a jihad, against non-christians who do not subscribe to the societal restrictions they derive from their bible (marriage, sexuality, etc). The coming elections will look much like the Reformation. The divide in this country between Christians trying to force their beliefs and those who do not subscribe to them is becoming larger by the day. Perhaps we should get our act together first before trying to democratize the rest of the world as this administration seems so hell bent on doing in the Arab world. The levels of intolerance (on both sides) is not only frightening but sad for its display of ignorance of the historical record and understanding of the constitution.
# posted by : 1:26 PM
: 1:26 PM
Good design!
[url=http://neatdvgj.com/cndw/tbgk.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://inoiroov.com/mrfk/kifx.html]Cool site[/url]
[url=http://neatdvgj.com/cndw/tbgk.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://inoiroov.com/mrfk/kifx.html]Cool site[/url]
# posted by : 3:09 AM
: 3:09 AM
Good design!
http://neatdvgj.com/cndw/tbgk.html | http://czzbynse.com/ibyj/amhl.html
http://neatdvgj.com/cndw/tbgk.html | http://czzbynse.com/ibyj/amhl.html
# posted by : 3:10 AM
: 3:10 AM
I think I agree with the other commenter who came to the conclusion that you are just a dumbarse Conservative American and you are the reason why so many many people hate America.
# posted by : 4:00 AM
: 4:00 AM
My name is Mark Johnson, and I've been an avid reader of your blog " Blog Spectrum " for about the last six months. I'm a recent UC Berkeley Political science grad and I along with some fellow Princeton alums have been working hard to launch our own internet startup called Rizzleweb.com. Rizzleweb is basically an online political community where people can log on and write performance reviews\comments for congressmen, senators, the president, and various other local and state officials across the country. I was hoping that if it would not be too much trouble you could place a link of our site on your blog. If this is not possible (which we completely understand), we still hope you will check out our site, and post some reviews
Mark Johnson
www.Rizzleweb.com
Mark Johnson
www.Rizzleweb.com
# posted by : 7:06 AM
: 7:06 AM
Gay marriage is has been proven to be "ok" in some societies, however, been overturned by the courts. Where the problems lie is not at the smaller city levels, but at the state and national levels. Some states are completely against gay marriage; therefore making a law in one state would cause problems with recognizing gay married couples. At the national level, it’s a matter of values. Especially with the Republicans controlling all branches of federal government, any legislation brought forward would be immediately shut down.
# posted by : 7:18 PM
: 7:18 PM
america is all about freedom of will. as one comment noted, loving is the most essential human trait... if we have no freedom in that regard, all lesser issues are meaningless.
plus, what do you care about relationship choices in other people? im not being forced to marry any gay people. my lifestyle wouldnt change. and a great number of people would be happier for the decision.
who am i to prevent them of that satisfaction?
plus, what do you care about relationship choices in other people? im not being forced to marry any gay people. my lifestyle wouldnt change. and a great number of people would be happier for the decision.
who am i to prevent them of that satisfaction?
In the end you're a narrow minded cunt, if people have feelings for eachother then let them be together, and if they love eachother enough to feel a legal contract stating so is in order (marriage certificate) then let them be protected by the law, the same way straight married couples are legally protected from alot of stiuations by the law. Its the same kind of feelings towards another person when you're gay - the same feeling of love, so why would you go and say its not valid? get off your fucking high horse of richeousness you dick.
# posted by : 8:18 AM
: 8:18 AM
Veteran's Day: We are Forever in Your Debt!
Watch Mitt's tribute to our troops and also find out a way to contribute to the Surge of Support for our troops at http://www.December7thforMitt.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
Watch Mitt's tribute to our troops and also find out a way to contribute to the Surge of Support for our troops at http://www.December7thforMitt.blogspot.com
<< Home
