Steve Cornell left a comment on my site which directed me to a post on his blog, thinkpoint.wordpress.com titled Will legalized Gay Marriage threaten Liberty? posted on May 27, 2009. I read through the post and then commented, however, my entry is still waiting for approval to post. I have reprinted my comment here.
[Blog Comment on thinkpoint.wordpress.com]
Because of the complexity of your post I am only address a portion of it, and if I have time I will continue to address things on my own blog. – Thanks.
I agree with your opening statement. “America is a nation of rich multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity. But maintaining civility within diversity requires citizens who respect those who differ from them. Requiring such goodwill is good for the nation…We should not be disrespectful of anyone for matters related to their nature or how they were born. These cannot be chosen or changed.”
But two things I respectfully disagree with are 1) the idea of sexual preference and 2) forcing homosexuality on the populace.
Idea of sexual preference: Homosexuality, whether choice (or as you term preference) or innate, matters not in the course of civil law. Unlike the associations you make with such things as “Rape, incest and all sexual contact between adults and children”, homosexuality causes no harm and, as pertaining to marriage, is most certainly consensual (meaning the two parties are of an age of legal consent). I will note here that any non-consensual sexual contact is never ok.
Forcing homosexuality onto the public: Here I struggle with two arguments with what you suggest. First you suggest by allowing two consenting adults to make a legal and binding commitment, forces those around them in their community, city, state, nation and world, to participate in that union or in your words “force[s] the lifestyle choices of others on everyone”. Now, this seems quite a rather irrational argument, since I am quite sure no other marriage of heterosexuals has forced anyone else heterosexual or homosexual to participate in their union. I am equally certain my neighbors marriage has not once forced me to participate in their union or played any role in my life. Their union is theirs, and affects them alone.
There is a flip side to using this as an argument, that is the idea of forcing of beliefs, in particular religion. It seems many of the arguments both in other posts and in comments, as well as opposing groups views, bring up religion. However, not everyone is of the same religious view. Yet, by making marriage an issue of religion, one can equally argue that by making laws under the pretense of keeping others from sinning or by acknowledging god, one is forcing a particular religious view upon the populace who may or may not be of the same religious belief. For instance, my religion has no issue with homosexuality nor of any two consenting adults (incest is not included in this) getting married, yet by religious people pursuing changes in civil law, those in my religion are forced to comply with beliefs they do not hold and are forbidden (in my state) to perform ceremonies under penalty of fines and jail.
So, with that said, I thoroughly disagree. Liberty is being affected, indeed, but it is not of those who are already married or of those heterosexuals wishing to marry, but of those who are gay and wish to make a legally binding commitment to their partner there by being able to legally support and be held accountable to that person. Here in really lies the injustice
No comments:
Post a Comment