Homosexuality.
I enjoy philosophical/religious debates, but let's do delve into something more specific. I've had a strange year. Being on a college campus exposes you to the far left end of the political spectrum, and I would have to say that by the end of the Fall semester 2004, I was leaning towards the side of supporting gay marriage. This usually surprises people, because I am known as the "conservative one." Since then, my best friend came out of the closet and my social group has included more gay men.
Tonight I hung out with my best friend and we spent some time talking about why it was that I enjoyed talking about politics with my boyfriend, who is highly liberal. When Andey and I first started seeing each other, we would have conversations that lasted for hours over politics, despite my belief that this would drive any interest right out the door. Instead, it made the conversation far more interesting. I told my best friend that when it came to politics, perhaps having the opposite viewpoints is something beneficial because it's not as if liberals and conservatives have different values. Most humans support the concepts of freedom, equality, and so on. We just have different ideas of how to achieve the ideal of those values. So, if two people meet and talk about those values, the different perspectives on how to achieve them do not create conflict, but contribute to more stimulating discussion.
Joel, my best friend, thought that gay marriage was an exception to this concept. I understand this in some ways because anyone who talks to me about gay rights thinks I'm highly liberal. I still waver on this issue anyway. There was an election in Oklahoma making gay marriage illegal, and I voted against the measure because it forbade anyone from giving the priveleges of marriage to any other form of partnership. This worked against heterosexual partnerships, and disallowed private organizations from being able recognize homosexual partnerships of their own volition. But do I think gay marriage is a good idea? I'm not entirely sure.
Thought for the night. I'm so grateful to everyone for contributing to discussion on my last few posts. I would really love to keep up this sort of discourse for a while.
----
Two cigarettes, a beer
Chitchat with a friend.
The voice over the phone
whose lips I want here.
Tonight I hung out with my best friend and we spent some time talking about why it was that I enjoyed talking about politics with my boyfriend, who is highly liberal. When Andey and I first started seeing each other, we would have conversations that lasted for hours over politics, despite my belief that this would drive any interest right out the door. Instead, it made the conversation far more interesting. I told my best friend that when it came to politics, perhaps having the opposite viewpoints is something beneficial because it's not as if liberals and conservatives have different values. Most humans support the concepts of freedom, equality, and so on. We just have different ideas of how to achieve the ideal of those values. So, if two people meet and talk about those values, the different perspectives on how to achieve them do not create conflict, but contribute to more stimulating discussion.
Joel, my best friend, thought that gay marriage was an exception to this concept. I understand this in some ways because anyone who talks to me about gay rights thinks I'm highly liberal. I still waver on this issue anyway. There was an election in Oklahoma making gay marriage illegal, and I voted against the measure because it forbade anyone from giving the priveleges of marriage to any other form of partnership. This worked against heterosexual partnerships, and disallowed private organizations from being able recognize homosexual partnerships of their own volition. But do I think gay marriage is a good idea? I'm not entirely sure.
Thought for the night. I'm so grateful to everyone for contributing to discussion on my last few posts. I would really love to keep up this sort of discourse for a while.
----
Two cigarettes, a beer
Chitchat with a friend.
The voice over the phone
whose lips I want here.
posted by Jesi E. at 8/02/2005 10:51:00 PM
7 Comments:
Upon request the state bestows upon a man and a woman a special legal recognition and privledges. A man and another man request the same and they are denied these same privledges. Analyze the two couples; there is only one real difference between the two. The hetrosexual couple has opposite sexual organs which when engaged in sexual activity appear to interact naturally, and can result in a child. The second couple has the same sexual organs do not appear to function in a similar natural way, and cannot produce a child.
These privledges bestowed by the state include tax status, tax credits, hospital privledges, litigation rules, liability ect.
These privledges are bestowed by the state onto individuals, by request, decidedly by who they choose to engage in sexual activity with for an indefinate longevity of time.
Is this morally wrong? Government's only moral purpose is the protection of individual freedom through the protection of rights. This recognition itself does not aid in the protection of rights nor is it function that only government can carry out. Liberty is only maintained by strict vigilance against extensions of government authority and power. Because such a recognition has the backing of force outside of justice, the recognition is immoral.
I am morally and constitutionally required to pay the taxes that I am liable for; as best as can reasonably be established. Becuase a married couple (depending on individual incomes) is required to pay more or less taxes based on that recognition, my tax liability has changed regardless of my actions or use. More of my property is taken then I am liable for, making the act a theft.
The forcing of private institutions to recognize this status violates a man's freedom of action without due cause. If a man who owns a hospital wishes to limit the visitation rules for a voluntary entrance onto his own property he should not be obstructed.
Child tax credits basically equate to one man being forced to subsidize another man's children. No individual is entitled to the property of another.
The list could continue for pages without even approaching the ability to describe the extent of the IRS' tax codes. My latter comments show that in addition to the recognition of marriage itself as being immoral and unnecesary, but the privledges that accompany it as well.
The main drive for this recognition has been both ignorance of history and natural law, as well as a misinterpretation of the Bible.
The American people more and more fail to recognize the danger posed by government and the general nature by which it's power is gained; the slow usurpation by unanalyzed but seemingly harmless acts. Because they fail to recognize how power is taken, they fail to recognize how to limit it. (though they grow more weary of the power itself)
The only way to chain government for moral means is through natural law and time-tested structure that lends itself to liberty.
Christians for the most part have misinterpreted the Bible as being a proponent of religious government. They see countries and cities destroyed by god in the Old Testament for their rampant wickedness and cry out that their nation shall be instead blessed by god for it's virtue. Because they believe in original sin, they feel that the only means of creating a nation of virtuous men is through the force of government; afterall men are evil. They read the pages of Old Testament and see god placing kings and governments over his chosen people and the same enforcing religious edicts by the sword; this must be right for American then.
They are led by men like James Dobson and Pat Roberts who point out the religious nature of the colonial and pilgrim governments of the New World, and proclaim that this a Christian nation by tradition, that our existance is due to god's blessing because of that tradition, and that the problems we now face are due to the wrath of god for our waivering.
These men fail to understand the Bible, and American history. The book of Second Samuel describes Israel as a libertarian society ruled only by Judges and man's own mind. Slowly the generations lose the principles that made them free, and they cried to god that they might be like their neighbors. God wearily and angrily enstated kings and governments over them in response, though warning Israel of their fate. Genocides and exile were to follow. It would seem that religious theocracy is not the favored system of god; who else knows man's nature best?
To the fearfully read examples of god's wrath against sinful nations and cities: god tends not to punish the innocent in the bible and if he does, they are justly rewarded for their strife. (Job) The populations of those stricken states were wholly guilty for wicked governments, not because a segment of the population freely chose wickedness. If god demanded that men serve him by force of government...the idea of free-will and choice is rather obsolete, for his force is far more effective. He would be more prone to destroy America for a religious theocracy based on false biblical principles...rather than a nation where men are free to choose god.
On the issue of American religious foundations: many of the original new world colonists were traveling to America to escape the religious persecution of state religion in England. They traveled 2500 miles only to create their own state churches, and they paid dear price for their ignorance; economy was stifled, hunger, famine, lack of justice, and a general violation of freedom.(Salem Witch Trials?)Thus men and women left these new theocracies for different lands to build freer societies. By the time of the constitution's ratification, nine out of thirteen colonies maintained state churches but that were only bleak remnants of the pilgrim theocracies. The theocratic heritage of our nation should be a badge of dishonor, not the basis for a christian political movement.
An interesting note is that the royally chartered colony of William Penn for the first decade of it's existance was the fast growing in population, the safest colony, had the greatest economic growth, and had the best record with the Indians; the colony was in majority religious, but governmentally free. Not a drop of Quaker or Indian blood was shed by each other for as long as the colony remained free. What great example shall I need to profer?
In resolution, state recognized marriage is immoral. The sanctity of marriage was lost when people sold it to government in exchange for the enforcement of their religious ideas. Private organizations should be able to create their own customs free from the force of government.
From a legal perspective, I don't think there's much left but time until gay marriage is recognized. Going all the way back to Griswold, the Supremes have held that marriage is a fundamental right under the 4th & 5th Amendment's implicit right to privacy, bringing with it a strict scrutiny analysis under both equal protection and due process grounds. But he courts have been avoiding equal protection analysis, because sexuality is not a suspect class.
Unless the states can come up with some narrowly tailored law designed to meet a significant state interest, or at least one that is facially neutral, then the ban will not survive. Morality has never been held to be a significant state interest for fundamental rights purposes, but that doesn't mean that the courts won't turn to it now... It just means that the rules will change later on when the societal norms change.
And that's not the end of the trouble for gay marriage. The courts have also consistently held that neither the privileges and immunities clause of the 10th nor the full faith and credit clause of Article 4 (I think it is) of the Constitution prevent one state from denying the marital status that another state recognizes, but those disputes are generally found in issues surrounding age and consanguinity. So, even if the feds can't discriminate based on sexuality, the states still can. The argument really hasn't even gotten this far...
From a moral perspective, I'm unable to say I see a problem with it. I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of condemning people morally for what they choose to do with their genitalia. I also disagree with the idea that homosexuality violates any natural law either, which I understand to be based on the rectifying of some harm. I know others view natural law as an expression of morality, but I see it the other way around. Unless so much of the population avows to halt reproduction, I can't see the harm in granting marital status and its benefits on homosexuals.
From a legal and natural rights perspective private marriage falls under the protection of the rights to life, liberty, and property. Rights are the means to freedom, which includes any individual action that does not infringe on the freedom and rights of others. Private marriage is a voluntary agreement/contract between two individuals.
State sponsored and endorsed marriage is a contractual agreement which bestows privledge upon individuals based on who they choose to have sex with. This is basically the penalization and reward of individuals based on how they conduct their private lives. Equal protection is meant to guarantee that all US citizens are held equal before the law, seperating the government from interference with man's private lives, and thus preventing government violation of their freedom. State marriage is a violation of the "Equal Protection" clause, and a violation of rights of every tax-payer, as well as a violation of thre rights of private individuals who are required by the government to acknowledge privledges guaranteed by state marriage. (hospitals)
If marriage is seen as a responsibility of government, then all individuals should be capable of obtaining marriage. This overlooks the fact that marriage should not be a function of the state.
As far as the existing legal system, you are right Lawdog, there is little that stands in the way of the Surpeme Court declaring state bans on gay marriage a violation of the equal protection clause. (some argue Due Process applies)Gay marriage falls under the same concept that the sodomy laws were struck down for but was purposely applied narrowly to sexual activity, and not general private liberty; the supreme court acts beyond its congressional and constitutional authority, and tends to limit the amount of controversy over it's decisions through gradual changes; otherwise Congress and the President might realize they have real power over the court.
Homosexuality is not a violation of natural law. State violation of human rights is. Natural law is moral law; morals are values by which human's choose to live their lives and natural law is a value system based on human nature, with freedom as the goal and standard.
Again, to say that government should include homosexuals in marriage laws because of freedom and natural rights is to overlook the fact that government recognition of marriage with any type of privledge is a violation of natural law, and the pure legal recognition of marriage by government is a structural danger that expands government responsibility beyond its moral purpose.
We're all bisexual and marriage is over rated anyway. Let's get rid of marriage in the civil sense and replace it with civil unions... that way we can recognize any union.
Secondly, what's this? a new beau?
I think that everyone is missing a major point.
State marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex. John Galt said "State sponsored and endorsed marriage is a contractual agreement which bestows privledge upon individuals based on who they choose to have sex with." WRONG. It is an agreement that bestows privilege upon individuals based on who they agree to share those privileges with. Sex, despite everything our bodies tell us, should have nothing whatsoever to do with state marriage.
To elaborate, I'm sure that you have heard of instances where elderly couples, some no longer capable of engaging in sex, have gotten married soley for receiving some benefits that would be afforded a married couple but denied to them as individuals. No, if we are talking about emotional marriage (I won't call it relgious marriage for now), then that is driven soley by the 'heart' and the reproductive organs. People enter into emotional marriage every day, each time they have sex. They are saying "I trust this person enough (or need these feelings enough) to risk my heart & emotions, to entrust them to this person." Emotional marriage is so easy to slip into, so easy to slip out of, & so devestating in it's toll on our hearts.
Now, spiritual marriage, the type that so many people are unaware of, is a blending of not only the emotions & the body (emotional marriage), but also of the possessions & identity (state marriage), as well as the joining together of two spirits. Now this may sound a little metaphysical-Tom-Cruise-woo-woo-ey, but imagine, if you can, that there is something inside a man or woman that is more than feelings & more than thoughts. That thing, the soul, wants to head toward God, because that is where it came from, that is who created it, that is 'home'.
A spiritual marriage is a joing of two people who recognize that their deepest longing, this journey toward God, resonates within this other person. And once they determine to marry, they are not only saying that all I own is yours, that all of body is yours, that all of my feelings is yours, but that my deepest drive & yearning is the same as yours & I want to fulfill all of our needs together.
Some people look at marriage as a way to get benefits, others as a way to get sex, but some do see the spiritual marriage and do understand a little bit of just how deep a marriage can push roots into a person's life. Of course, folks confuse these types all the time, thinking that a state marriage is always a spiritual marriage & vice versa & that, of course, leads to discussions like these.
Hope I've given you folks something to ponder.
*** John Galt -- "State sponsored and endorsed marriage is a contractual agreement which bestows privilege upon individuals based on who they choose to have sex with."****
****Dwayne, "WRONG. It is an agreement that bestows privilege upon individuals based on who they agree to share those privileges with."***
Dwayne you state that marriage isn't always about sex, that people pursue it for different reasons. This is true, and was never denied. It would idiotic to believe otherwise.
In reality government defines marriage as a voluntary contractual agreement between a man and a woman which deserves special privileges from the state. The reasons why people choose this voluntary agreement are subjectively countless. Here is the crux: Ask yourself why it is defined as between a man and a woman? Because religious people in government, people raised in a Christian tradition, and people that believe that homosexuality isn't natural, believe sodomy is wrong, and that homosexuality in general is a sin...and they feel state recognition of anything otherwise would demean private religious marriage. (which they abandoned to government) So...the basic reason why homosexuals cannot marry is because as a married couple, they would be having anal sex and not vaginal intercourse. The difference is entirely a SEXUAL difference. Homosexuals aren't disallowed state marriage because two men can't have the same spiritual bond or emotional exchange, or because the marriage privileges couldn't be applied to them...its entirely the issue of sodomy and sin. Because it's an "unnatural relationship of sin" these men also feel that homosexuals are incapable of raising the same kind of traditional and healthy family as heterosexuals, thus leading to the breakup of society; though this is only a byproduct and not the primary reason for anti-homosexual marriage ideas.
*** Dwayne: "Sex, despite everything our bodies tell us, should have nothing whatsoever to do with state marriage." *****
You are speaking of how state-marriage SHOULD BE and I am telling you the REALITY of what state marriage is, in relation to homosexuals, and why government should have nothing to do with contractual marriage save for legal litigation; legal marriage should be no different from any other voluntary contractual agreement. If state marriage is to continue to exist, which it shouldn't, IT SHOULD INDEED have nothing to do with sex because that would require government to be in the business of approving or disapproving people's private lives through special rewards which is only a step away from actual control of your private life.
--Quotes--
"Liberals think people are smart enough to decide who to vote for, but not to choose whether to wear a helmet."
"Canadians now have to wear helmets when bicycling; walking and sex wont be too far away."
Just ask yourself, what would W say?
http://weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA20050709.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home