With what’s been going on in California keeping the issue of same-sex unions in the spotlight, I can’t help but wonder what your thoughts might be on this matter? On one hand, we have a group consisting primarily of Christians, who believe that marriage-an institution sanctified by God-should not be recognized when the united parties are of the same sex. On the other hand, we have two citizens (or residents) who have decided to commit their lives each other, and feel entitled to certain legal benefits to which heterosexual unions are privy.
Now, when it comes to legislation, my understanding is that the law shows (or should show) no bias towards any particular belief system, not excluding Christianity. What seems to be the real issue?.…terminology. I believe the primary concern being put forth by the gay and lesbian community is recognition of their union before the state, not before God. Having decided to commit to each other in the same manner in which a man and woman would, why should a same-sex couple not be entitled to take advantage of tax privileges, sharing benefits at work, and the number of other opportunities straight couples have available? Just because they’ve made a decision that isn't in line with what's mainstream?
The majority of our laws are based upon notions of right and wrong. We get these notions from mostly our judeo/christian/muslim backgrounds, which if followed correctly are for the most part legitimate guides for deciding conduct. On top of that, the Bible itself says that God's law is written on our hearts. Meaning that a man in the middle of the jungle who has never heard of religion naturally has some sense of right and wrong. All of the above references point to the error of homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteBut leaving God out of it, one can think about it from a scientific standpoint. The law of nature is perpetuation of the species. Of which ours procreates heterosexually. Therefore, outside of some kind of abnormality, nature itself would not "create" something that is naturally only going to mate with its own sex. It would make no sense. Gay rights advocates have up until this point failed (despite claims of gay animals and such that were not true)to contradict this fact. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if a society should change its public policy to recognize this particular abnormality? And by doing so are we at the very least passively supporting (through the tax dollars which pay marriage benefits)something which can legitimately be seen as erroneous? I mean I am all for protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but only if those rights are truly logical and legitimate and do not impose an incorrect point on the majority. If same sex couples want to "marry" they should go ahead and do so. But they should not try to force others to recognize it as on par with heterosexual marriage and most importantly force them to use their tax dollars to pay for it.