After listening to the inane chitter chatter of Anti-Gay Marriage Advocates, here's a couple of things to think about on the Gay Marriage debate.
When I started writing this, I had hoped to have a great 12th round TKO decision from the California Supreme Court regarding the legality of Gay Marriage for you, the readers. After watching several hours of arguments broadcast on C-SPAN, I realized that getting a decision in one month let alone one day , from any Supreme Court is next to impossible. The arguments that I witnessed painted a pretty bleak picture for those nearly 4,000 couples who were granted marriage licenses here in San Francisco earlier this year. I agree with Mayor Gavin Newsom that California Proposition 22 (a law that states only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in the state of California) is unconstitutional as well as extremely discriminating. While I side with the Mayor, he did jump the gun by issuing marriage licenses before suing to strike down the law and in doing so severely hurt the chances of making the marriage licenses valid for those hopeful couples that wanted the slice of American Life.
California Proposition 22 is just one of the hurdles that same-sex couples have to overcome for their right to marry. The other hurdle is dealing with the actual people behind those propositions (there was a similar proposition (Prop. 24) on the ballot at the same time, leading to a confusing vote to say the least), the Anti-Gay Marriage Advocates who put up quite an argument against Gay Marriage. (OK, it seems weird to have Anti and Advocate in the same description since one means against and the other means for. However calling them Hate Mongers is so one sided on my part so Ill refer them as AGMA from now on). Here are just a few of the AGMAs points:
Gay Marriage violates the sanctity of marriage
Not the best point, but a point none-the-less. What exactly is The Sanctity of Marriage? Having been married once myself I thought back on this one: the wedding vows. Whether couples make up their own vows or use the standard vows that are read by the official over the marriage, the vows are typically the same: The couple promises to stick with each other through thick and thin, richer or poorer and in sickness and in health.
The main promise is to LOVE EACH OTHER!
The couples that promise that to each other are supposed to stick to their promise (note: my ex-wife and I decided to break our promise to each other. Amicably -I might add) and keep that promise until one partner dies. If a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, race or religion makes this promise to each other that is the sanctity of marriage. Many of the same sex couples that were granted marriage licenses in San Francisco had been together for more than 10, 15 or even 20 years, making a promise to each other without a license I might add. That means that many of these couples had been together longer than most marriages in the U.S. actually stay together.
Gay Marriage doesnt violate the sanctity of marriage, the record high divorce rate does. Oh thats right, the divorce rate in the U.S.! It seems that the AGMAs seem to let the high divorce rate slip out of their peripheral vision. Heres a spin to try: Why not let same-sex couples get married, especially the long term marriages, which would throw off the divorce rate curve!!! Add about one million more stable marriages and the U.S. will knock that divorce rate down a couple of points and maybe the U.S. will qualify for a medal or something! Then again, hate seems to work best while in Tunnel Vision mode.
: Gay couples are unable to raise a normal, happy family
- another argument doled out by the AGMAs
This point seems to be rooted more in a scientific/biological fact where a couple of the same sex cannot procreate with each other, thus unable to make babies. This argument does not take into consideration modern ideas such as invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and adoption. Just because a couple is unable to have children themselves does not mean that couple cannot raise children. There are many couples who have children and cannot raise them, thus the adoption market. By making the argument that gay couples cannot procreate, the AGMAs actually shoot themselves in the proverbial foot by saying couples with fertility issues are themselves bad people and should not be married.
Normal couples can adopt a child, hire a surrogate mother or visit a fertilization clinic to solve their fertility issues, thus allowing the couples to have children. While having a child technically makes a family, having that child doesnt necessarily ensure that family will be normal or happy. There are many children in the world today that have heterosexual parents, yet do not have a happy family or a normal childhood, meaning the children are allowed to live freely without fear of being molested, tortured or mistreated any other way. There are many heterosexual couples that have had a normal and happy family yet things didnt turn out quite the way the family had hoped.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both came from normal and happy families and we all know what happened with these two (for those of you that dont, both youths were behind the Columbine massacre in 1999). A family can be made of anything really: A single mother with three children, a single father with one child, a gay couple with an adopted baby, even grandparents taking care of their grandchildren. Hell, even foster parents can raise a family! Clearly many different equations go into making a family, but there is one common bond: LOVE. If there is love in the family, then the family doesnt need to worry about their financial situations, the color of their skin, whether they have two mommies or two daddies. That family has everything when they have the love between parents and children.
Gay Marriage is an abomination to GOD
OK, now the AGMAs are just getting biblical here and, as everyone knows, you cannot argue with the Bible! Actually, we can argue with the Bible. A quick bible study: Depending on which Bible you read, there are three parts to the Bible: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Gospels.Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Ringo George stayed out of it)]. For the time being we (thats you, the reader, and me, the writer are going to focus on two parts of the bible.
The Old Testament features fire and brimstone kind of stories, the kind of stories that feature a vengeful GOD that smites any human that does not do what GOD wants him to do. Boo-Yah!! Its like an action movie, except supposedly everything in the Old Testament really happened. Then theres the New Testament, dealing with one of the coolest prophets that has ever walked the earth (supposedly): Jesus Christ!
Another side note: I am neither promoting Christianity nor am I knocking it, just reporting from my angle, a non-practicing Catholic now dabbling in Zen Buddhism.
Jesus was a prophet, spreading the word of the GOD through tolerance and peace throughout the land. Jesus preached that we humans should accept one another for who we are, love one another and work together for the greater good and love of GOD. Doesnt that sound great?
Man, if only that lesson could get through to the people!!! Looking at the Bible split into three books: If the Old Testament was Gods biography, then the New Testament was done by Gods PR man trying to make God less vengeful and more Pro Good Stuff! The Gospels would be considered testimonials,. so, looking at the Bible, there are two sides to look at: Fire and Brimstone teachings or Love and Acceptance teachings. Which one do we as humans choose? Tough decision isnt it? Gods Old Word or Jesus New Word. In the grand scheme of things, youd be following the word of th Lord in either case so youre good when you go to heaven! Many good Christians seem to float back and forth between the Old Testament and the New Testament, choosing which verse (or verses) work best for the argument at hand. Of course, that can go both ways, so if youre planning on arguing against the Bible, the best bet is to use the Bible and choose your argument carefully! St. Peter and the pearly gates await you!
Oh, wait! Heres another rub to consider: what if someone doesnt worship Christian or Catholic? What if theyre Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other religion? Should people be forced to live their lives based on a set of laws that have been established from a book of stories? Before you answer that, let me put a little twist out there: This argument is taking place in the United States of America, right?
Damn straight it is! This absurd argument, whether or not a couple wants to get married, is taking place in a country that was founded on the freedom of religion as well as the freedom FROM religion! A country that is supposed to separate church FROM state, whose Declaration of Independence features the phrases where all men are created equal as well as that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Heres the great part: I actually copied and pasted from the actual Declaration of Independence and this is all from the same sentence. Isnt the Internet Great?)
Rationally speaking, the argument against Gay Marriage is absurd! There is no reason to deny ANYONE their right to live life as they so choose, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, their reproductive capabilities or religion. Gay couples are seeking their right to happiness, that's it, nothing more. What people do in their bedrooms or behind closed doors in general is their own business. If two people love each other and are of legal age to get married, let them! Stay out of their business! If we are truly to exist as a great country, our nation needs to accept all people! Somehow, the founding fathers of the United States of America, back some 200 plus years ago, knew that this country would be something special, a country that everyone from all over the world would flock to in order to live a life that truly is special.
When I started writing this, I had hoped to have a great 12th round TKO decision from the California Supreme Court regarding the legality of Gay Marriage for you, the readers. After watching several hours of arguments broadcast on C-SPAN, I realized that getting a decision in one month let alone one day , from any Supreme Court is next to impossible. The arguments that I witnessed painted a pretty bleak picture for those nearly 4,000 couples who were granted marriage licenses here in San Francisco earlier this year. I agree with Mayor Gavin Newsom that California Proposition 22 (a law that states only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in the state of California) is unconstitutional as well as extremely discriminating. While I side with the Mayor, he did jump the gun by issuing marriage licenses before suing to strike down the law and in doing so severely hurt the chances of making the marriage licenses valid for those hopeful couples that wanted the slice of American Life.
California Proposition 22 is just one of the hurdles that same-sex couples have to overcome for their right to marry. The other hurdle is dealing with the actual people behind those propositions (there was a similar proposition (Prop. 24) on the ballot at the same time, leading to a confusing vote to say the least), the Anti-Gay Marriage Advocates who put up quite an argument against Gay Marriage. (OK, it seems weird to have Anti and Advocate in the same description since one means against and the other means for. However calling them Hate Mongers is so one sided on my part so Ill refer them as AGMA from now on). Here are just a few of the AGMAs points:
Gay Marriage violates the sanctity of marriage
Not the best point, but a point none-the-less. What exactly is The Sanctity of Marriage? Having been married once myself I thought back on this one: the wedding vows. Whether couples make up their own vows or use the standard vows that are read by the official over the marriage, the vows are typically the same: The couple promises to stick with each other through thick and thin, richer or poorer and in sickness and in health.
The main promise is to LOVE EACH OTHER!
The couples that promise that to each other are supposed to stick to their promise (note: my ex-wife and I decided to break our promise to each other. Amicably -I might add) and keep that promise until one partner dies. If a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, race or religion makes this promise to each other that is the sanctity of marriage. Many of the same sex couples that were granted marriage licenses in San Francisco had been together for more than 10, 15 or even 20 years, making a promise to each other without a license I might add. That means that many of these couples had been together longer than most marriages in the U.S. actually stay together.
Gay Marriage doesnt violate the sanctity of marriage, the record high divorce rate does. Oh thats right, the divorce rate in the U.S.! It seems that the AGMAs seem to let the high divorce rate slip out of their peripheral vision. Heres a spin to try: Why not let same-sex couples get married, especially the long term marriages, which would throw off the divorce rate curve!!! Add about one million more stable marriages and the U.S. will knock that divorce rate down a couple of points and maybe the U.S. will qualify for a medal or something! Then again, hate seems to work best while in Tunnel Vision mode.
: Gay couples are unable to raise a normal, happy family
- another argument doled out by the AGMAs
This point seems to be rooted more in a scientific/biological fact where a couple of the same sex cannot procreate with each other, thus unable to make babies. This argument does not take into consideration modern ideas such as invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and adoption. Just because a couple is unable to have children themselves does not mean that couple cannot raise children. There are many couples who have children and cannot raise them, thus the adoption market. By making the argument that gay couples cannot procreate, the AGMAs actually shoot themselves in the proverbial foot by saying couples with fertility issues are themselves bad people and should not be married.
Normal couples can adopt a child, hire a surrogate mother or visit a fertilization clinic to solve their fertility issues, thus allowing the couples to have children. While having a child technically makes a family, having that child doesnt necessarily ensure that family will be normal or happy. There are many children in the world today that have heterosexual parents, yet do not have a happy family or a normal childhood, meaning the children are allowed to live freely without fear of being molested, tortured or mistreated any other way. There are many heterosexual couples that have had a normal and happy family yet things didnt turn out quite the way the family had hoped.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both came from normal and happy families and we all know what happened with these two (for those of you that dont, both youths were behind the Columbine massacre in 1999). A family can be made of anything really: A single mother with three children, a single father with one child, a gay couple with an adopted baby, even grandparents taking care of their grandchildren. Hell, even foster parents can raise a family! Clearly many different equations go into making a family, but there is one common bond: LOVE. If there is love in the family, then the family doesnt need to worry about their financial situations, the color of their skin, whether they have two mommies or two daddies. That family has everything when they have the love between parents and children.
Gay Marriage is an abomination to GOD
OK, now the AGMAs are just getting biblical here and, as everyone knows, you cannot argue with the Bible! Actually, we can argue with the Bible. A quick bible study: Depending on which Bible you read, there are three parts to the Bible: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Gospels.Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Ringo George stayed out of it)]. For the time being we (thats you, the reader, and me, the writer are going to focus on two parts of the bible.
The Old Testament features fire and brimstone kind of stories, the kind of stories that feature a vengeful GOD that smites any human that does not do what GOD wants him to do. Boo-Yah!! Its like an action movie, except supposedly everything in the Old Testament really happened. Then theres the New Testament, dealing with one of the coolest prophets that has ever walked the earth (supposedly): Jesus Christ!
Another side note: I am neither promoting Christianity nor am I knocking it, just reporting from my angle, a non-practicing Catholic now dabbling in Zen Buddhism.
Jesus was a prophet, spreading the word of the GOD through tolerance and peace throughout the land. Jesus preached that we humans should accept one another for who we are, love one another and work together for the greater good and love of GOD. Doesnt that sound great?
Man, if only that lesson could get through to the people!!! Looking at the Bible split into three books: If the Old Testament was Gods biography, then the New Testament was done by Gods PR man trying to make God less vengeful and more Pro Good Stuff! The Gospels would be considered testimonials,. so, looking at the Bible, there are two sides to look at: Fire and Brimstone teachings or Love and Acceptance teachings. Which one do we as humans choose? Tough decision isnt it? Gods Old Word or Jesus New Word. In the grand scheme of things, youd be following the word of th Lord in either case so youre good when you go to heaven! Many good Christians seem to float back and forth between the Old Testament and the New Testament, choosing which verse (or verses) work best for the argument at hand. Of course, that can go both ways, so if youre planning on arguing against the Bible, the best bet is to use the Bible and choose your argument carefully! St. Peter and the pearly gates await you!
Oh, wait! Heres another rub to consider: what if someone doesnt worship Christian or Catholic? What if theyre Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other religion? Should people be forced to live their lives based on a set of laws that have been established from a book of stories? Before you answer that, let me put a little twist out there: This argument is taking place in the United States of America, right?
Damn straight it is! This absurd argument, whether or not a couple wants to get married, is taking place in a country that was founded on the freedom of religion as well as the freedom FROM religion! A country that is supposed to separate church FROM state, whose Declaration of Independence features the phrases where all men are created equal as well as that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Heres the great part: I actually copied and pasted from the actual Declaration of Independence and this is all from the same sentence. Isnt the Internet Great?)
Rationally speaking, the argument against Gay Marriage is absurd! There is no reason to deny ANYONE their right to live life as they so choose, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, their reproductive capabilities or religion. Gay couples are seeking their right to happiness, that's it, nothing more. What people do in their bedrooms or behind closed doors in general is their own business. If two people love each other and are of legal age to get married, let them! Stay out of their business! If we are truly to exist as a great country, our nation needs to accept all people! Somehow, the founding fathers of the United States of America, back some 200 plus years ago, knew that this country would be something special, a country that everyone from all over the world would flock to in order to live a life that truly is special.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |