Gay Marriage Amendment
Gay marriage seems to be the latest news "Hot Topic." To me it seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to take people's minds off of things that the Administration doesn't want to talk about or can't control IE the war, immigration, border security, etc. I'm trying to stay neutral. I can see pros and cons for both sides. I can see it as an issue of bias. I can see it as an issue of morality. I can see it as a distraction from other, more important issues...
Opponents to gay marriage say that statistics indicate that traditional marriages have dropped in countries where it was legalized. I haven't found the statistics that they are speaking of any where on the web. Lets just say that they do exist for arguments sake. How accurate are they? Statistics are only as good as the question that is asked. These questions can be asked to elicit a desired answer. For instance, if t hey asked the question, "Have traditional marriages declined since legalized gay marriages," they may have gotten an affirmative response. If you further asked, "What were the marriage trends like prior to gay marriage," the response may have been declining. If this is the case then gay marriage didn't cause the decline in traditional marriage, it was happening already. That's why I just chuckle when people quote statistics from unknown sources.
I'm wondering if the proponents have considered the consequences of gay marriage. Ultimately it could lead to gay divorce. Let a gay marriage advocate go through a divorce and then ask him if he/she still supports marriage. I'd love to here that answer.
Some people look at it as a religious issue. My answer to this is religion should stay out of it. They only need to be concerned with marriages conducted by their organization. A marriage conducted by a Justice of the Peace is a legal marriage, even if a particular church or religion doesn’t sanction it. That being said, these groups should have the right not to perform a marriage that goes against their ideals. They do not have a right to reject this on a religious basis though because we have separation of church and state here.
Some say it's a moral issue. They say that it will add to our country's moral decay. I disagree with this part. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It kind of does away with the whole promiscuity thing (in theory.) It at least puts consequences in play for promiscuity, IE the aforementioned gay divorce. This, while not being religiously moral, is socially moral. It could actually help to cut the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
So, as I said before, I see both pros and cons to the issue. I also see it as a small issue made larger by the news and politicians. To that I say “Whatever!”
Opponents to gay marriage say that statistics indicate that traditional marriages have dropped in countries where it was legalized. I haven't found the statistics that they are speaking of any where on the web. Lets just say that they do exist for arguments sake. How accurate are they? Statistics are only as good as the question that is asked. These questions can be asked to elicit a desired answer. For instance, if t hey asked the question, "Have traditional marriages declined since legalized gay marriages," they may have gotten an affirmative response. If you further asked, "What were the marriage trends like prior to gay marriage," the response may have been declining. If this is the case then gay marriage didn't cause the decline in traditional marriage, it was happening already. That's why I just chuckle when people quote statistics from unknown sources.
I'm wondering if the proponents have considered the consequences of gay marriage. Ultimately it could lead to gay divorce. Let a gay marriage advocate go through a divorce and then ask him if he/she still supports marriage. I'd love to here that answer.
Some people look at it as a religious issue. My answer to this is religion should stay out of it. They only need to be concerned with marriages conducted by their organization. A marriage conducted by a Justice of the Peace is a legal marriage, even if a particular church or religion doesn’t sanction it. That being said, these groups should have the right not to perform a marriage that goes against their ideals. They do not have a right to reject this on a religious basis though because we have separation of church and state here.
Some say it's a moral issue. They say that it will add to our country's moral decay. I disagree with this part. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It kind of does away with the whole promiscuity thing (in theory.) It at least puts consequences in play for promiscuity, IE the aforementioned gay divorce. This, while not being religiously moral, is socially moral. It could actually help to cut the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
So, as I said before, I see both pros and cons to the issue. I also see it as a small issue made larger by the news and politicians. To that I say “Whatever!”
2 Comments:
ya, I can see both sides to it too.
Ultimately, I guess a person's opinion on the issue comes down to whether or not they think that a person is born gay or if they choose to be gay.
It does open the door wide open for other groups to marry too.
There is a polygamous group in Canada that will probably be able to get legal status to marry since the precedence has been set. If you look at the Netherlands they have a pedophile political party now that is trying to get pedophilia and bestiality rights like gays have.
Our society has moved into what is called moral relativism, which means what is considered perverse or wrong today will be normal next generation. Behold the exact path of the falling of the Roman Empire.
About 40 to 50 years ago, whenever someone would bring up the simularities between the fall of the Roman Empire and the USA, they would get told, "That was purely coincidental, it would never happen."
Well, it has also been said of history -- "That if we don't learn from it, we will repeat it."
It sure looks like that's happening nowadays.
Post a Comment
<< Home