Gay marriage: political, moral, and social views

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Gay marriage: political, moral, and social views 01.22.04 (9:38 pm)   [edit] With the recent decision in Massachusetts allowing homosexuals the right to receive the benefits of marriage, there has been much discussion and controversy over the issue of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not solely an issue of gay rights- there are many differing viewpoints that must be considered in regard to gay marriage. Politically, the issue of gay marriage evokes the importance of investigating the motives behind such legislation. The legal definition of marriage is challenged by Massachussetts' ruling. This is Bush's reasoning for proposing a ban on gay marriage- he contends that one state cannon rewrite the definition of marriage for all other states. The political ramifications of legislation either for or against marriage also consist of bringing a certain sense of moral, and in turn, religious, preference to the political arena. The controversy over granting homosexuals the right to marry is based on the religious definition of marriage- as a holy union between a man and a woman- as well as the view that homosexuality is a sin. Thus, to provide a legal answer to this question is to assert a religious morality in the government and on the people. This undermines the concept of the separation of church and state. This issue also sheds light on the impact of governmental legislation regarding the private lives of the citizens. For the government to determine whether a couple may marry is evidence of the ever-increasing power given to the government. It is my contention that the government should have no reason to interfere in the private decision of marriage. There should be no legal benefits (or repercussions) received as a result of marriage, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. The moral implications of allowing or disallowing gays to marry lie not in the realm of legislative authority or political action, but involve religious and cultural standards. As stated before, the religious view generally maintains that homosexuality itself is a sin. This view also holds marriage to be a sacred, holy bond. It is obvious why those claiming these beliefs are appalled at the concept of gay marriage- to them it is not only allowing a sinful act, it is demeaning the nature of the most sacred union between two people. However, my solution to this moral problem is quite simply logical thought. Marriage is a union between two people; sex is a private matter, generally between two people. Unless you are one of the people directly involved, it doesn't affect you. Thus, whether a couple is allowed to exist should not matter to you. I propose that the moral standard of equality of rights for all serves a better purpose than the moral standard that is condemning of a particular lifestyle. The foreboding of Bush's gay marriage ban can be viewed in terms of the social implications. Is our society ready to allow the homosexual lifestyle not only the right to exist, but the entitlement to marry? Can the private lives of the citizens be determined by the government? Should homosexuals be given the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples? Moreover, this issue requires that there be a definitive set of requirements (at least legally) for what marriage is. As it is, there is no ultimate definition of marriage to be held as a standard. Marriage can be viewed as a holy union between a man and a woman, a commitment to love for all eternity, a more simplified union of two people, or a coming together for a specific purpose (be it monetary in motive, or social- as in marrying for status). None of these defintions- and I'm sure there are more ways of interpreting marriage- is to be held to a higher regard than any other; they are all equally valid. Many may disagree with some of the definitions of marriage or the motives, but there is no absolute definition of marriage. The president, as it seems, would like to change this, at least in the legal realm. Bush would like to have marriage defined for all as a sacred union between a man and a woman. His motive for this as well as his rationale, is based in religion. Should we allow religion to converge into the political realm and set a moral standard? Additionally, we must use the prominent discussion of this issue to examine the definition and purpose of marriage itself. The purpose of marriage depends entirely on the definition given. If you'll notice, only one definition I supplied previously mentioned love. This is because I don't see how marriage can be defined as a means of confirming or supporting love. I'm really only mentioning this to point you towards this http://www.tblog.com/template... my essay on marriage- which I just moved to my blog so that comments can be made. :wink:   posted by: UsefulIdiot (reply) post date: 01.22.04 (6:54 pm) Excellent blog. I'm impressed with your thought process. Marriage tends to be as you state a religious terms, and as such the Church should establish their own rules for marriage. For example, Divorcees cannot marry in the Catholic Church. However, I support Gay Civil Unions (or 'marriage') that permits two homosexual people to legally have all of the legal rights of two heterosexual people. One of the major objections that Bush has, is not based upon a religious view (as Bush hasn't condemned DIVORCE, far more damaging our society, given its prevalence). Bush doesn't back GAY Civil Unions because corporations don't want to PAY the costs for Gays to cover their partners with health care, social security, etc. posted by: UsefulIdiot (reply) post date: 01.22.04 (6:57 pm) P.S. Sorry but legal benefits and repercussions are intertwined throughout our laws based upon the institution of marriage that affects inheritance, testifying in court (you are not obliged to testify against your spouse), insurance, custody, etc... Gay 'marriages' as civil unions will come someday and should. This should be separate from Churches-- and the Government should not impose their view pro or con upon Churches-- Nor should Churches impose their viewpoints upon Government. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.22.04 (10:03 pm) I don't agree with that rather silly answer about Bush not supporting Gay Unions so corporations don't have to pay benefits, but I agree that marriage should be seperate from Church. If you want a fancy ceremony, go ahead, that's part of what makes a marriage special. But let anyone perform it, and get rid of all those stupid strings. Ultimately, I would like to see the government completely ignoring marriage. It's a change in social status, and a symbol of commitment- if societal institutions like banks and adoption agencies want to recognize some people's marriages and not other people's that's their problem. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.23.04 (3:09 pm) Reply to: UsefulIdiot Well, thank you. I think it's important to examine the issue from as many perspectives as possible (and relevant) in order to better understand it. I agree that the religious form of marriage should be regulated by the church, rather than the state. I don't know about your statement regarding Bush's adversity to gay civil unions/marriage. I think it's a bit irrational to think that Bush is against it because corporations would have to pay. I think he's against it because of religious reasons- his religion views homosexuality as a sin and marriage as holy, therefore he thinks it is wrong to allow homosexuals to marry. As for the legal benefits and repercussions regarding marriage, I don't think the government should be involved at all. It's a private matter that should be left as just that. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.23.04 (3:17 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 I don't know, I think that one of the most common definitions of marriage is directly related to religion. Therefore, marriage shouldn't be separated from the church. It should, however, be separate from government, and with no interference from the government. As I mentioned in my blog, marriage isn't something that has an absolute standard definition- there are many different ways of interpreting what marriage is and what purpose it serves. To many, the role of marriage is certainly a religious union. To others, it is not. That's why there can be no legislation imposing one set of definitive roles for marriage on all, and why it should be left up to the individual to determine what definition of marriage they choose to ascribe to. It is (well, should be) a social matter, not legal. posted by: UsefulIdiot (reply) post date: 01.24.04 (1:00 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 You make a good point. However since our laws treat the marriage institution as a legal entity and affect our civil rights, inheritance, cutody, and a whole range issues-- perhaps it would simply be better to legalize Civil Unions between Gays and then leave it up to the Churches to decide whether or not they approve. Dubya has no business imposing his own religious bigotry on the rest of us ... (As to whether it is rational or irrational to consider that Bush has other more pernicious motives related to Big Corporations-- that is a judgement call-- but judging from his sordid track-record, one can be forgiven for asking the question!) Thanks for the thought-provoking blog. It is useful to listen to different perspectives, and yours are always articulated well, even if I don't always agree with you. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.24.04 (1:45 pm) Reply to: UsefulIdiot I think the major problem with just legalizing gay civil unions and leaving the government involved in the realm of marriage is that not everyone agrees with it and it leads to a great deal of controversy, further dividing our country. I agree that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals; in fact, I was truly surprised by the amount of controversy this issue has provoked. But I think that, as marriage is not easily defined, it should have no legal definition- it should be left to the people, the churches, the social organizations, to define marriage. I agree that Bush, nor any other politician, should be allowed to impose his religious views on the entire nation, and that is what the ban on homosexual marriage would be doing. "one can be forgiven for asking the question!" Not only can you be forgiven, but I think that, though I disagree with your previous assertion, it is important to explore all possible motives and all aspects of an issue. The more differing perspectives presented, the better. "...yours are always articulated well, even if I don't always agree with you." Aww, thank you. I think the fact that you don't always agree with me makes that an even more complimentary statement. :) posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 01.24.04 (8:45 pm) well written essay, again. I think Dumya is an idiot. Of course his religion bands homosexuals and all that crap, but more intelligent people know better. The thing is that to be married brings entitlement for the people who are married. Insurance benefits, custody, etc. So, because Dumya is being repulsed on a personal level, one way to maintain power over gays is to withhold the right to Marriage from them. Also, it is still legal to discriminate against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation. Now who else can you discrimate against and have it be legal? Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins