|
|
|
I'm covering two issues: intolerance by the gay community (and its supporters) and how there is no valid argument against gay marriage (and rights, but mostly marriage). Be prepared, me thinks this shall be long.
Intolerance By the Gay Community
Now, this is something I've noticed, and I think this is a minor bump to homosexuals getting full rights like everyone else. We will never gain full rights for the gay community if we continue intolerance against homophobia. I'll be the first to say that I don't agree with homophobia at all, but that does not mean they should be labeled stupid, idiots - any of that. They deserve freedom of voice and opinion just as much as the next person, and we should not try to take that from them by forcing our own opinions on them. We will never gain tolerance through intolerance.
No one should be hated for their thoughts or opinions, but for who they are. If someone thinks that homosexuality is wrong, well, whatever. But, I draw the line at trying to take away rights from the gay and transgendered community. If you vote against homosexual marriage, if you think its alright for them to be fired for their sexual preference - you are a bigot, and you are wrong. That might sound hypocritical, but think of it like this (using Jews as an example): You are a Christian and, therefore, don't agree with Jews. Does this mean you support a holocaust? No. (Tis a bit extreme, but makes my point clear)
Now, on to the main point of the entry:
There is No Just Constitutional Reasoning to Banning Gay Marriage.
There seems to be many who disagree with gay marriage of any sort, but offer cheap alternatives to it. There is only one that would constitutional way to do that, and that would be removing marriage from the law completely, and having a uniform term for both hetero and homosexual life partners (civil union, life partnership, whatever), giving them the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as each other. This would not get rid of marriage completely in the states, because one could still be married by a religious figure - it would just hold no grounding in the law whatsoever.
Now, this partially covers the main argument against gay marriages: marriage is a religious thing, and it should be kept as such.
Now, firstly, which religion does it 'belong" to? There are many religious associations which do not condemn homosexuality: "The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.
The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.
The United Methodist Church forbids blessing same-sex unions, which has inspired ecclesiastical disobedience, church trials and much debate." Taken from: Religious Support for Equal Marriage
Other religious/spiritual groups that do not condemn homosexuality: Neo-Pagan, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoists, Shinto, Wiccan, Agnostic, Satanists and many, many more. All of these religions are allowed to marry under American law, as well as Atheists, so its quite obvious that marriage is not a solely religious thing, and even if it were, it would depends on which religion that you looked at to decide whether or not "God" thinks homosexuality is wrong.
Now, even if every religion ever thought that homosexuality is wrong, then that should hold no ground in American law. After all, we are not a theocracy, are we?
Eh.
I'll finish this later.
 20 Shades of Crazy · Tue May 27, 2008 @ 08:14pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
