Oh, just had to gloat a bit that that stupid bit of legislation just got flushed.
But, I am sure will be appealed by the moral "majority" who funded the whole rot in the first place. It was pointed out to me by someone wiser than myself tonight on all things Politically Scientific in the Grand Ol' USA that the way this proposition was defeated sets a disappointing precedent of National versus State law. I then confirmed this disappointment with my wonderful husband who happened to also study Political Science. Poopsicles.
Take a look-see here: Same-Sex unions are frowned upon by churches. They are frowned upon in the Koran, the Bible, the Torah and many other texts that are sequels to these wonderfully mono-visioned pages of worship. Most of the progressive, non-religiously driven folk I have spoken to of this matter, and even quite a number of folk who do happen to believe in a higher power (and are quite capable of viewing their literature with a worldly grain of salt) agree that same-sex unions do not interfere with marriage between a man and a woman.
I certainly don't feel any threats. I got married and had a baby, too. And no gay person stood in my way to stop me, or tell me that I had poor morals. Why is it that people who think morals came directly from god, or more than one of them, would tell those same neighborly folk they should not get married?
Again, it goes to moral superiority. If my book tells me this, it is true. I have faith in the whole shebang.
Morals can actually be supported by evolutionary science, as well. Many things we do in communities would cause a negative backlash, and we have adopted a code in each individual society to protect ourselves and offspring from such backlash. In a family setting, it is frowned upon to murder a family member. Hey! It's an easily recognized moral then; that killing your own is wrong. Bring this to town, and realize that the backlash of killing a member of another family could conclude in more of the same visited to your family, and we have a societal moral value. Let's all agree not to kill each other, MmmKay?
You can then draft your own morals again from following trends set in your community. Many of these people are involved in mono-theistic activities, or a sub-culture, that is a part of our earthly whole. While I take these folk at face value and do think that it would be nice for them to broaden their scope of values to include people who are different from themselves, they apparently do not. They do not take me, an atheist, at that same level. They like to point to differences and infer based on what they have been taught by their separate religious leaders that different folk are inferior folk.
They might claim to view things differently, but corner one of them sometime. You'll find they start any argument based on verbage passed out at their gatherings, and if you find logical reasons that even they can see to disagree, they usually fall into fits of anger or end conversations by saying, "we will have to agree to disagree, then."
Seriously, how in the world does same-sex marriage take anything away from opposite-sex marriage? They'd like to say it's a fundamental thing, but it really always turns into a monotheistic world view. There are no problems derived in nature with same sex couples beyond the direct inability to produce offspring (without a simple work-around).
Marriage ... while this debate is roaring and whooping, I nearly feel it's just a blank on the tax form to the Federal Government, but it is very important to those who would like to become bound to their partner in a socially recognized way. It is a loophole for some immigrants. It is a bother for some Roman Catholics who decided they like someone else.
The rights of same-sex couples should be protected by the constitution. Besides those religious folk in our country who decree that there should be a definition of marriage based on their dusty, antiquated texts, can you come up with another reason to dwell on the issue of same-sex marriage? I can't. To me, it's a done deal. It should be allowed.
While on the topic of marriage, however, I would like to add that I really also think the institution of marriage should be completely voluntary. There are still countries in the world where people are forced into arranged marriages. There are polygamous sects in the US that have also been found to have these tenets in their creed - marriage should be a choice always.
And yes, while I'm at it - I believe that polygamous (consensual) couples should also be allowed to marry. If they want to figure out the tax forms, let 'em. I think that the consensual age limitations should stay in effect. I also strongly feel that no person should ever be sold, bought, bartered, gambled, or promised in a marriage they are not ecstatic about. Leave the underage kids out of it!
And then speaking of children, I believe that children can be healthily raised in a non-traditional family just as easily in a traditional family, and may have even more resources as they grow up. Like an extended-immediate family. I still also fully believe children and people should be (and are) protected by laws from depraved people who would abuse or hurt them, and that living in a non-traditional family does not pose any extra risks to these children, as long as you follow current prescribed law for abuse and assault.
That sums it up for tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment