Now before I start I would like to say to things. One, if you are reading this you either like me enough to listen to this or you care about the issue. Either is fine. The second is that I personally have no stance on this issue. I do not care if gay people do or do not get the right to marry.
Right, now that I'm done with that time to get down to the meat and bones of the question. Should gay people gain the right to marry? First of all, gay does not mean homosexual, nor is homo short for homosexual. Gay is a synonym for happy and homo is a prefix meaning man or the same. I am slightly tired of people using these terms. If you are going to put a label on someone do it properly.
Next the definition of marriage. At it's loosest definition this means a connection, between two people for various reasons, love, connections. That sort of thing. So when this loose definition is applied here I see no problem. It's when specifics are introduced, particularly of biblical nature that things become restricting for the homosexual couple. The version of the bible that I was using did not have a section dedicated to marriage, so if someone on the "anti gay"side could point me to that I would be much obliged, but it does specifically say wife.
Staying inside the real of the biblical someone has cited the example of Sodom and Gommorah. Sodom of course being the basis for the word sodomy which has some discrepancies in its meaning. Suffice it to say that it has some relevance but ultimately a small amount. The point that this person was making was that Sodom and Gommorah were punished for this act of anal intercourse. This is somewhat true but ultimately misguided from my point of view, the punishment was not for anal intercourse, or rather not solely for this intercourse.The other sins were things like oral sex and intercourse with animals. You can say what you will about whether or not this has much to do with any lack of consent but that is simply fine print that I choose not to read into. The crucial point here being that being gay was not the only reason that these people were punished, there were other factors and it is not known how much of a factor this was in Sodom and Gommorah's destruction.
There are other biblical arguments I could state such as the every popular, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." but I've had enough of the bible for now. It's bad enough that some people force it down others throats, now it gets dragged into this argument. Mind you it has caused wars before. Now for the law. My understanding of the law as it reads today is that it says that marriage consists of a man and a woman who are unmarried at the time and are over 18. Now this is fairly clear cut and as our good friend the bible states that you should respect the laws of the land. Not try to change them.
I will find citations for this at some point I promise.
I have also heard stories about people who have come to the church gay, renounced their "evil" ways and had a family. However in my opinion this is not something inherent in the religion itself, rather the way it is taught. Nowhere aside from Sodom and Gommorah, to my knowledge, does God or Jesus speak out or act against gays. In fact when considered in a different light some of Jesus' teachings could be considered homoerotic.
Now I am normally a heavily opinionated young man. If you tell me something chances are I will have something to say about it. But in this case I heard opinions before I could formulate my own. As such the opinions were corrupted and not purely mine. I am not gay, but nor do I discriminate against them, I have a gay friend. Which is incidentally where I got the firsthand knowledge of the whole church going repentance story.
The other reason why I have no opinion on this topic is that it does not affect me. I am not gay, thus I have no need for a law change. The way I perceive a marriage will not change. I have always perceived couples as couples regardless of their marital state. The married couple are simply more attached to each other, to borrow a gaming metaphor, they leveled up couple status. And surely if homosexuals have lived with these unwholesome titles and names like fag and queer then I think they can get by without marriage. Just my thought.
On the whole I have no reasons not to change the law, two dads or moms may make just as good of parents as a father and a mother. Provided the child was happy and learnt the necessary skills like potty training and such then the upbringing was a success.
However on the whole I have no reason to allow the law change either. A system is in place, a system that has some flaws and defects but is essentially sound. Some tweaks to this system would accomplish almost exactly what a law change would.
So while opinions abound and as do arguments I sit here apathetic and confident that the entire debate is in fact a waste of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment