Since I have decided to reactivate this blog I thought I'd repost one of my better posts for your thought and discussion
While I was out driving one afternoon, I was listening to a radio talk show host, a very conservative one.The theme of his commentary today was how awful gays are and how gay rights are horrible, etc. The usual talking points.
Listening to it prompted me to write this commentary of my own. I have many good friends who side with this host on the gay rights issue and have often been part of discussions on the topic.
I have often tried to convince them of why they are wrong on this issue, and will offer my views as follows.
The first point often made is that it is wrong for us to 'approve of' or 'allow' gays to have the same romantic activities that 'normal people' do (please note the quotes there).
Now perhaps someone forgot to send me the memo, but as far as I know, no consenting adult needs my permission, blessing or consent to do whatever they want to with someone they love.
Indeed the only circumstance where my consent would be required is if I was the subject of the romance (which I suppose would depend on how good dinner was).
So on point #1, I see no reason whatsoever for me to rail over what romances happen between what people. If personal distaste were the standard, Britney Spears would have been banned from dating years ago.
The next big issue raised is Gay Marriage. Again I am told that we must not allow this to happen because it is a threat to 'real marriage' and that somehow by allowing it we will destroy society.
The first thought I have is to wonder how the actions of roughly 10% of the population can harm the actions of the remaining 90%.
In addition, given the fact that the current divorce rate is nearing 50% and that infidelity seems to be more common that not, I wonder how much more harm can be done ?
I do understand that many are concerned about this issue from a religious standpoint, but there is where I again seem to lose track of the logic.
I am a religious person, and for that reason I see things differently than some of my fellow worshipers.
For me, Marriage (big M) is indeed a religious ceremony. It is a covenant between two people that is sanctified by God. For me this is the essence of big M marriage and without it there is no true union.
Since this is a discussion of what society should do and not what the Church should do I will set aside for now the debate on Churches approving Gay Unions or what the Biblical view on homosexuality is.
However I will point out that a fair reading of the Bible makes it clear that we are to love all people regardless and that judgement is best left to God. So right there we perhaps need to have some of our religious leaders re-read the Bible.
Looking to the State aspect of the marriage equation, that seems to me to be more of a legal relationship. It is in essence a contractual agreement between two people under which they agree to accept certain responsibilities in exchange for certain benefits.
This to me is not marriage, it is a contract. Thus I see no reason that it should matter who the couple is that enters into this contract. Indeed, for me it seems that if you are making a big deal about this aspect of marriage you are demeaning the value of the spiritual one.
There are also practical benefits to allowing Gay Marriage. As it stands, there are no legal responsibilities assigned to a gay relationship.
If you have a couple where one serves in the traditional 'homemaker' role and the other as the breadwinner, and they break up, then the homemaker has no recourse to seek support from the breadwinner, even if they helped that person succeed.
As a result, they would probably rely on government for support. If there was a legal gay marriage, they would have the option to seek proper support, removing the burden from society
So with regard to marriage, I again submit that the right is wrong.
The final area often cited by the right is Gay Adoption. They rail against the perceived evil of allowing gays to adopt, suggesting that doing so will result in the production of a whole new generation of 'gays'.
Now I find that particular argument interesting since most gays were presumably raised by straight couples, and yet somehow did not turn out straight.
There is one area where I might agree with the right in their argument that in a that the best place for a child is with a stable married mom and dad.
This is not to say that I think gays or singles are in any way unfit, but having a stable mom and dad in the picture gives the child both a male and female role model with the input of both points of view, etc.
However, the number of stable married Mom & Dad couples ready to adopt is greatly exceeded by the number of children needing homes.
In addition, there is no reason that a gay or single couple could not seek to have people in the child's life to provide that other gender role model (grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc)
Ultimately, a stable loving couple is much better than an unstable home or remaining in foster care or an orphanage.
We have kids out there who need a home and good loving people ready to offer one, and that should be the end of the equation.
So while I do have some agreement on this third topic, I think that in large the right is once again wrong.
More important that the basic ideas discussed above is the fact that by taking these positions the right presents itself as intolerant. In the past many of these same arguments were made on racial grounds, and that was wrong.
So is this.
Cross posted to Central Sanity
Listening to it prompted me to write this commentary of my own. I have many good friends who side with this host on the gay rights issue and have often been part of discussions on the topic.
I have often tried to convince them of why they are wrong on this issue, and will offer my views as follows.
The first point often made is that it is wrong for us to 'approve of' or 'allow' gays to have the same romantic activities that 'normal people' do (please note the quotes there).
Now perhaps someone forgot to send me the memo, but as far as I know, no consenting adult needs my permission, blessing or consent to do whatever they want to with someone they love.
Indeed the only circumstance where my consent would be required is if I was the subject of the romance (which I suppose would depend on how good dinner was).
So on point #1, I see no reason whatsoever for me to rail over what romances happen between what people. If personal distaste were the standard, Britney Spears would have been banned from dating years ago.
The next big issue raised is Gay Marriage. Again I am told that we must not allow this to happen because it is a threat to 'real marriage' and that somehow by allowing it we will destroy society.
The first thought I have is to wonder how the actions of roughly 10% of the population can harm the actions of the remaining 90%.
In addition, given the fact that the current divorce rate is nearing 50% and that infidelity seems to be more common that not, I wonder how much more harm can be done ?
I do understand that many are concerned about this issue from a religious standpoint, but there is where I again seem to lose track of the logic.
I am a religious person, and for that reason I see things differently than some of my fellow worshipers.
For me, Marriage (big M) is indeed a religious ceremony. It is a covenant between two people that is sanctified by God. For me this is the essence of big M marriage and without it there is no true union.
Since this is a discussion of what society should do and not what the Church should do I will set aside for now the debate on Churches approving Gay Unions or what the Biblical view on homosexuality is.
However I will point out that a fair reading of the Bible makes it clear that we are to love all people regardless and that judgement is best left to God. So right there we perhaps need to have some of our religious leaders re-read the Bible.
Looking to the State aspect of the marriage equation, that seems to me to be more of a legal relationship. It is in essence a contractual agreement between two people under which they agree to accept certain responsibilities in exchange for certain benefits.
This to me is not marriage, it is a contract. Thus I see no reason that it should matter who the couple is that enters into this contract. Indeed, for me it seems that if you are making a big deal about this aspect of marriage you are demeaning the value of the spiritual one.
There are also practical benefits to allowing Gay Marriage. As it stands, there are no legal responsibilities assigned to a gay relationship.
If you have a couple where one serves in the traditional 'homemaker' role and the other as the breadwinner, and they break up, then the homemaker has no recourse to seek support from the breadwinner, even if they helped that person succeed.
As a result, they would probably rely on government for support. If there was a legal gay marriage, they would have the option to seek proper support, removing the burden from society
So with regard to marriage, I again submit that the right is wrong.
The final area often cited by the right is Gay Adoption. They rail against the perceived evil of allowing gays to adopt, suggesting that doing so will result in the production of a whole new generation of 'gays'.
Now I find that particular argument interesting since most gays were presumably raised by straight couples, and yet somehow did not turn out straight.
There is one area where I might agree with the right in their argument that in a that the best place for a child is with a stable married mom and dad.
This is not to say that I think gays or singles are in any way unfit, but having a stable mom and dad in the picture gives the child both a male and female role model with the input of both points of view, etc.
However, the number of stable married Mom & Dad couples ready to adopt is greatly exceeded by the number of children needing homes.
In addition, there is no reason that a gay or single couple could not seek to have people in the child's life to provide that other gender role model (grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc)
Ultimately, a stable loving couple is much better than an unstable home or remaining in foster care or an orphanage.
We have kids out there who need a home and good loving people ready to offer one, and that should be the end of the equation.
So while I do have some agreement on this third topic, I think that in large the right is once again wrong.
More important that the basic ideas discussed above is the fact that by taking these positions the right presents itself as intolerant. In the past many of these same arguments were made on racial grounds, and that was wrong.
So is this.
Cross posted to Central Sanity
