Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Gay Marriage

Alright, so I was watching the Daily Show couple nights ago and Mike Huckabee was the guest. After watching that interview I definitely have some things to say and ask everyone. I am sick and tired of hearing about the "traditional" definition or the "5000 years of tradition of marriage" or especially the fact that "70% or 80% or whatever percentage of the nation want to deny marriage to same sex couple - all of these claims are pure crap!.

First one is the traditional definition which goes hand in hand with the 5000 year old tradition: in today's society marriage is not about the traditional definition of marriage. The 5000 year old tradition included the fact that women were the property of men. Adultery was a crime only if it was with a married woman because the woman was property and the man would be stealing another man's property, as well as they should both be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22; we don't seem to carry on this sort of tradition now do we?). Which brings us to the fact that when the government decided to start issuing the license (I think the first was around 1923) the whole tradition argument became moot! It was no longer a religious act but a state act, and even when still done in the church we are not trying to force churches to do anything in their ceremony that they don't want to: this is about the legal state agreement. Religions should have made a better argument to keep "marriage" in only the religious context back then and make the legal agreement separate (many religious people tried to argue that it was bigamy or heretical or whatever to be married in the church and in the state etc but no-one makes those arguments anymore). And if they are serious about the traditional "marriage" they should be arguing to stop all of the drive-thru and/or elvis impersonating marriages, as well as plain legal ceremonies at the courthouse - all of which go against the so-called "traditional marriage".

The idea that marriage is about having kids and supporting the next generation means nothing - way too many couples are married and have no intention of having kids. There are lots of biblical definitions of marriage that no one is arguing for now like brothers having to marry widowed sister-in-laws (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10), death to non-virginal brides (Deut 22:13-21), or my favorite that marriage will not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21). And don't do the whole old testament vs new because the new does not refute these AND proponents always say - thousands of years old tradition which goes to the old testament; you never hear the "1200 - 2000 year old tradition because we don't really know when all of the new testament was written arguments now do you?). And what about the traditions of other religions for thousands of years - would they get same billing just because of their long standing tradition?

When the government started issuing licenses which included tax deductions, the right to walk into a hospital and ask the doctor what is wrong with your partner (and not be told family only), the right to share health benefits, the ability to retain these rights when you travel to other states or countries etc. (link for US people), automatically being the next of kin when your loved one dies and not having to add legal battles to your time of sorrow, and so many more rights taken for granted by straight couples ...........which are all instantly obtained by saying "I DO" for any jack-ass man/woman couple regardless.

The percentage of people who don't want gay marriage and therefore "majority rules" is another horrible argument. Majority does rule for most issues unless it involves discrimination or violates basic human rights, which is why we have the bill of rights and is why women can now vote, minorities have rights, and interracial couples can marry: all of these were things that the "majority" of the country did not want at one time and these rights were not a result of changing the majority opinion/mindset but rather legally deciding that everyone deserved these rights regardless of the majority opinion.

This brings us to another argument which is that many people accept rights for minorities, women, interracial etc., but are still against gay rights because people think this is some sort of "choice". Jon Stewart made a great comment to Huckabee on this issue - "when did you decide to NOT be gay?". No one decides this and in fact religion has been shown to be way more of a CHOICE and look at the protection, special treatment and outright bend-over-backwards treatment they get!

There is so much scientific data on homosexuality in animals and differences physiologically, anatomically, and genetically between heterosexuals and homosexuals, as well as several studies showing homosexuality in males may be related to highly fertile mothers or that have shown how individuals related to homosexuals have better reproductive success.

Final note - there is a reason why majority rules is not always the final answer - mobs do stupid things and we as a society have already realized this and established specific protections (constitution and bill of rights come to mind); we just seem to forget this each time something new comes up and babble on about tradition, always this way or the bible says so - and all of these arguments have been shown many times throughout history to be bad premises. So ask yourself if you have made these same arguments in your head and why? What would you rally say to someone lose to you who was gay and asked you why you don't let them have the same rights? How would you justify it to this person you care so much about and consider a friend or loved one? (assuming at least that you are not among the ignorant homophobic hate group - for those of you the discussion would be very different).

Ok one more side note, I read a blog of someone (can't remember where) who whenever anyone said this is my husband or wife etc. they would use boyfriend or girlfriend or partner when referring to the other person's partner and when corrected about them being a wife/husband they would respond "my religion/faith doesn't recognize your marriage" which I think may be extreme but I LIKE IT and plan on using that some day for sure! How would that make you feel if other people questioned your commitment and love for your partner as well as its validity?

No comments: