Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Gay Marriages –A Human Perspective
- By Greg Stewart
Editor's Note: As some of you may or may not know I am taking my core requirements for my Anthropology degree at a local community college. By doing this is I have reduced my expense in the cost of paying for my degree. However, in order to transfer to a full accredited university, I must meet a certain criteria.
One of those criteria is the requirement of college research English. Why do bring this nostalgic moment up? Once again, the recycled debate of gay marriage has hit the political landscape. Three years ago, when the political savvy elite found fodder in rehashing this a "cultural war" gem as a way to energize the religious right base, I wrote an essay research paper for this class. So, I dusted it off and I submit it to you for your appraisal or discussion. One further point, I would like to acknowledge my instructor for all his patience and guidance - Bob O'Connell
Thesis Statement
Gay marriages should be allowed between two consenting adults, they should be afforded all the privileges that go with it, and the government should lead the way..................
Click HERE To Read On
Editor's Note: As some of you may or may not know I am taking my core requirements for my Anthropology degree at a local community college. By doing this is I have reduced my expense in the cost of paying for my degree. However, in order to transfer to a full accredited university, I must meet a certain criteria.
One of those criteria is the requirement of college research English. Why do bring this nostalgic moment up? Once again, the recycled debate of gay marriage has hit the political landscape. Three years ago, when the political savvy elite found fodder in rehashing this a "cultural war" gem as a way to energize the religious right base, I wrote an essay research paper for this class. So, I dusted it off and I submit it to you for your appraisal or discussion. One further point, I would like to acknowledge my instructor for all his patience and guidance - Bob O'Connell
Thesis Statement
Gay marriages should be allowed between two consenting adults, they should be afforded all the privileges that go with it, and the government should lead the way..................
Click HERE To Read On
# posted by Publius @ 6/13/2006 01:09:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Well, Gregory, since you single me out, I feel I should respond...
I agree with you that we should not toy with the Constitution lightly. Further more, I share your distaste even in this measure (since I advocated for the amendment banning gay marriage).
However, you offer a simplistic argument about Constitutional purity on that level, i fear. For, if you so steadfastly stand against ever changing the Constitution (something even the Founders did not want to do), then you are tacitly allowing just any outrage to to committed by the opposition. After all, if you never feel it right to resort to an attempt at amendment, the opposing side will act with impunity knowing you will never try to stop them.
Now, as to your argument that there should be gay "marriage" allowed... well, I disagree with that even more vehemently. If we eliminate the ideal that a marriage is strictly between one man and one woman and allow same sex marriage we will be opening the door to allow any sort of relationship to be considered "marriage". There will be no logical reason to disallow bigamy, polyamory, or just any kind of arrangement that man can think up. After all, we changed it once for the gays, why not everyone else who has a different concept of "marriage".
If you doubt this, just read any of the literature from those who support bigamy/polygamy who openly say that they will run straight for the courts if the idea of gay marriage is legislated for acceptance. Can any other advocacy groups for perversions or societal taboos be far behind? I don't see how an intelligent person wouldn't automatically realize that they wouldn't immediately see all sorts of wackos and nuts hit the courts with their "marriage" schemes.
Last, it will further undermine an already deteriorating nuclear family which will also imperil our society as some European countries are finding out.
I agree with you that we should not toy with the Constitution lightly. Further more, I share your distaste even in this measure (since I advocated for the amendment banning gay marriage).
However, you offer a simplistic argument about Constitutional purity on that level, i fear. For, if you so steadfastly stand against ever changing the Constitution (something even the Founders did not want to do), then you are tacitly allowing just any outrage to to committed by the opposition. After all, if you never feel it right to resort to an attempt at amendment, the opposing side will act with impunity knowing you will never try to stop them.
Now, as to your argument that there should be gay "marriage" allowed... well, I disagree with that even more vehemently. If we eliminate the ideal that a marriage is strictly between one man and one woman and allow same sex marriage we will be opening the door to allow any sort of relationship to be considered "marriage". There will be no logical reason to disallow bigamy, polyamory, or just any kind of arrangement that man can think up. After all, we changed it once for the gays, why not everyone else who has a different concept of "marriage".
If you doubt this, just read any of the literature from those who support bigamy/polygamy who openly say that they will run straight for the courts if the idea of gay marriage is legislated for acceptance. Can any other advocacy groups for perversions or societal taboos be far behind? I don't see how an intelligent person wouldn't automatically realize that they wouldn't immediately see all sorts of wackos and nuts hit the courts with their "marriage" schemes.
Last, it will further undermine an already deteriorating nuclear family which will also imperil our society as some European countries are finding out.
Also...
Also, you scoff at my usage of "judicial activism" rightly reminding us that there can be both conservative and liberal activist judges. However, that is a meaningless distinction. After all, shouldn't we be fighting BOTH activists who over step their bounds? To listen to you we should IGNORE them just because they happen to come from both sides!
Post a Comment
Also, you scoff at my usage of "judicial activism" rightly reminding us that there can be both conservative and liberal activist judges. However, that is a meaningless distinction. After all, shouldn't we be fighting BOTH activists who over step their bounds? To listen to you we should IGNORE them just because they happen to come from both sides!
<< Home
|
