Gay Marriage
Alright, the whole debate on Gay Marriage is stupid. This is because it ignores one ESSENTIAL aspect of the debate, and thus we're left with a bunch of politicians yelling at each other "You're homophobic!" or "You hate the traditional American family!" and all the other bullshit.
The essential point they ignore is that marriage is a multi-tiered institution, three tiers to be exact. There is the the state institution of marriage, the religious institution of marriage, and the institution of marriage between the two married individuals. They are three entirely different institutions, and thus to speak of what "marriage" as a whole is, is quite frankly preposterous.
Now I've been accused of being a liberal because I support gay marriage on all three tiers. I am of the opinion that those who are willing to throw those accusations are retarded.
On the state level, it's a government institution, and I am firmly of the belief that there is no sanctity in ANY government institution. Marriage in particular is nothing more than state recognition of a domestic partnership. Now if you think this is sacred, I would actually maintain that YOU are a liberal, because there is no fucking way a conservative could think that any aspect of government is sacred. The actual institution is important, calling it marriage is not (and if that's your only issue, then shut the fuck up, cause you are being petty). The institution is important because it allows governmental issues to more accurately address the people it effects. For example, it would be unreasonable to allow anyone who wants to to come in and visit someone on their death bed. That being said, we are closer to some that are not our blood relatives, and to deny the right to visit a dying loved one just because there is no blood relation is cruel and immoral. Marriage helps to lessen how often this happens. Also tax wise, two people sharing income is different than one person with an income, thus another important aspect of the institution. Also, the reason why employee health insurance applies to the employee's family is because we often have situations where one partner works outside the home, and the other does the work inside the home (thus allowing the other to be able to work outside the home more), and due to that domestic partnership the rewards of the payed work (that which is outside the home) are shared.
Now none of these should be denied to gays. Gays love each other, and share all of the aspects of domestic partnership that straights have, and thus the only reason one would want to deny them these rights is bigotry.
Then there is the religious institution of marriage. This is only important to the religious. As a religious person, I do find marriage sacred, but I do not see monogamous gays as a threat to it. I instead see Hollywood publicity stunt marriages as a threat to it's sanctity, I see people who get married 6 or 7 times as a threat to it's sanctity, but I do not see gays as a threat to it (other than gays who'd get married as a publicity stunt or get married 6 or 7 times, just as straights, but that's an issue we're yet to have to face). In my personal beliefs, love is love, and if two people love each other, and want to stand together with God, then by all means. Thus religiously I recognize gay marriage.
But, as it is with all issues dealing with religion, it's to a great deal subjective. Just as I respect those who believe that Mohammed is the savior instead of Jesus, I also respect those who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong. If we do not respect each others' religious beliefs, then we have no right to expect others to respect our own.
This is not the government's business, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose morally to recognize gay marriage should be entirely up to you.
Then there is the personal institution, which I won't speak on much. Essentially, it only involves those participating in it. My cousin Morgan is only married in this way, but it's still a marriage as far as I'm concerned. Hippie married, but married none the less.
As we blur these lines between religious and governmental institutions, the debates become muddled and irrelevent. We have separation of church and state for a reason, and it's to avoid ridiculous shit like this.
The essential point they ignore is that marriage is a multi-tiered institution, three tiers to be exact. There is the the state institution of marriage, the religious institution of marriage, and the institution of marriage between the two married individuals. They are three entirely different institutions, and thus to speak of what "marriage" as a whole is, is quite frankly preposterous.
Now I've been accused of being a liberal because I support gay marriage on all three tiers. I am of the opinion that those who are willing to throw those accusations are retarded.
On the state level, it's a government institution, and I am firmly of the belief that there is no sanctity in ANY government institution. Marriage in particular is nothing more than state recognition of a domestic partnership. Now if you think this is sacred, I would actually maintain that YOU are a liberal, because there is no fucking way a conservative could think that any aspect of government is sacred. The actual institution is important, calling it marriage is not (and if that's your only issue, then shut the fuck up, cause you are being petty). The institution is important because it allows governmental issues to more accurately address the people it effects. For example, it would be unreasonable to allow anyone who wants to to come in and visit someone on their death bed. That being said, we are closer to some that are not our blood relatives, and to deny the right to visit a dying loved one just because there is no blood relation is cruel and immoral. Marriage helps to lessen how often this happens. Also tax wise, two people sharing income is different than one person with an income, thus another important aspect of the institution. Also, the reason why employee health insurance applies to the employee's family is because we often have situations where one partner works outside the home, and the other does the work inside the home (thus allowing the other to be able to work outside the home more), and due to that domestic partnership the rewards of the payed work (that which is outside the home) are shared.
Now none of these should be denied to gays. Gays love each other, and share all of the aspects of domestic partnership that straights have, and thus the only reason one would want to deny them these rights is bigotry.
Then there is the religious institution of marriage. This is only important to the religious. As a religious person, I do find marriage sacred, but I do not see monogamous gays as a threat to it. I instead see Hollywood publicity stunt marriages as a threat to it's sanctity, I see people who get married 6 or 7 times as a threat to it's sanctity, but I do not see gays as a threat to it (other than gays who'd get married as a publicity stunt or get married 6 or 7 times, just as straights, but that's an issue we're yet to have to face). In my personal beliefs, love is love, and if two people love each other, and want to stand together with God, then by all means. Thus religiously I recognize gay marriage.
But, as it is with all issues dealing with religion, it's to a great deal subjective. Just as I respect those who believe that Mohammed is the savior instead of Jesus, I also respect those who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong. If we do not respect each others' religious beliefs, then we have no right to expect others to respect our own.
This is not the government's business, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose morally to recognize gay marriage should be entirely up to you.
Then there is the personal institution, which I won't speak on much. Essentially, it only involves those participating in it. My cousin Morgan is only married in this way, but it's still a marriage as far as I'm concerned. Hippie married, but married none the less.
As we blur these lines between religious and governmental institutions, the debates become muddled and irrelevent. We have separation of church and state for a reason, and it's to avoid ridiculous shit like this.
posted by Galen at 2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home