Social Equality vs. Tradition October 15, 2008
Posted by ianbob08 in Uncategorized.trackback
This past weekend I had the privilege of spending some quality time with my best friends. As we sat around a fire pit, our conversation began as it usually does: life, women, and without fail, politics and then religion. Our beer-fueled discussion ultimately arrived at the topic of gay marriage.
I have a couple friends who made respectable arguments in opposition to gay marriage; mostly on religious grounds. They don’t condone the gay lifestyle because of Biblical passages that say homosexuality is a sin. And I respect those beliefs, but I personally support marriage equality on the grounds of freedom.
The Yes on 8 people (a bit confusing if you’re from out of state. Yes on 8 means you’re voting, “Yes, please amend the California constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman) believe the following:
The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergartners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it. (Taken from http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/why)
I have three arguments in opposition to this view. They’re my arguments, so take ‘em or leave ‘em.
- The problem with this belief is that it ignores the fact that marriage has already been devalued by heterosexual couples. Divorce rates are at around 50% in this country and the statistics on men and women who cheat are staggering. My point is this: In America, marriage has become disposable. Any attempt to reinforce the sanctity of marriage must start with the couples who can already legally marry: straight folks.
- The fear that Yes on 8 supporters have of teaching kids about gay marriage is strangely reminiscent of the fear white folks had of desegregation. I don’t mean to compare the current state of gay rights to the sorry state of civil rights prior to the 1960s, but people are generally afraid of change. Just because something is traditional doesn’t make it right. I think the Yes on 8 people are sending up paper tigers in an attempt to scare society into voting against equality. We can try to hide the fact that same-sex couples exist or we can tell the truth. It’s that simple.
- This is likely my coldest argument and as such could garner the most criticism, but I think it is also the most tangible. The global population is marching toward 10 billion by 2050. I believe there is something to be said for same-sex couples as devices for population atrophy. I know it’s callus, but in theory, same-sex couples cannot reproduce. Every little bit helps. My wife and I probably won’t be around when the severe global food shortages take place, but my children and grandchildren probably will. If one same-sex couple eliminates one or two more mouths to feed, then great.
In review, this why I’m voting No on 8:
- Marriage has already been ruined by straight people; gays shouldn’t be scapegoated.
- Kids can handle the truth; it’s adults who have a hard time it.
- Not procreating is a virtue; this planet will some day reach capacity.
nicely said. if it weren’t for drunk friends talking theology i don’t know if CS Lewis would be quite the theologian that he was. he met at pub weekly or something and talked theology. i think i am a no-er as well. catch you later buddy.
in regards to argument three, if same sex couples adopt orphaned children it could decrease poverty, not a lot but one less orphaned kid is awesome!
Dave, you’re totally right at CS Lewis. A lot can be said for the social lube known as beer.
Ryan, I agree, but I didn’t want to get into gays adopting kids on this post… what if someone from church sees this blog? They’d kick me out for sure.
But you’re absolutely right. There are tons of orphaned kids in the system and tons of straight couples who neglect their own kids. Most gay parents I’ve seen or read about provide theirs kids with love and stable home lives; which is more than can be said for a lot of families these days.
I will address each argument accordingly.
1. Divorce does not ruin the definition of marriage. Yes it is a problem, and it devalues marriage, but it doesn’t change the definition. You are taking the argument of how this redefines marriage, to hey wait look over there, that is bad too. Its a distraction argument, and really doesn’t address the issue. So the fact that marriage is disposable is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that homosexual marriage will changes the definition of marriage. Don’t use the distraction argument, it doesn’t build your case, it just attacks some unrelated issue. The issue here is not whether or not heterosexuals have done a good job with marriage, its what should the definition be. And as far as defining goes, I wonder how a government can decide the definition of a religious act. Its not their place, and should not be their decision. The decision should be up to the individual churches or civic institutions that grant someone the right of marriage. The reason I say this, because as the law stands now, a church has no say on their own definition of marriage, even though they are the ones granting these marriages. That is why I say the definition should be defined by these organizations, and not the state.
2. This is nothing like desegregation. There you have people asking for civil rights, here these people already have civil rights. Any male can marry any female, and any female can marry any male. They already have the exact same freedom as a heterosexual. Granted I know that is a little rough, but when you look at the facts that is how it is. Where with the civil rights, minorities did not have the same rights as white people. Now the problem is not that the kids will be aware of homosexual couples, but that they will be told this is acceptable, when to many people it is not. Just as I do not think Christian laws should be imposed on the secular world, I do not think secular views should be imposed on Christian kids. To each it’s own. And so a child should not have to hear from a teacher, that such a lifestyle is OK, when in fact that kids parents do not want their child taught such a thing. I understand that it can be a bit sheltering, but that is a parent’s right. I agree the parent should teach their kids about these things in a healthy manner, but to force it on parents is just plain wrong.
3. Yes it is a cold argument, but what makes you think homosexual couples wont have kids? Before they were ever getting married they were having kids. Either through adoption or surrogate parents. It happens all the time, and so really that is no argument at all.
Reasons I am voting yes on 8
-The state does not have a right to define marriage for churches.
-Parents have a right to control what worldviews their children are taught
-Homosexual will not help control the population through lack of procreation, they do it all the time.
“The state does not have a right to define marriage for churches.”
- I have to assume that church will maintain the right to refuse to marry gay couples, just as Parkcrest has decided, without any legal repercussion. I would hope so anyway, and I wouldn’t support a proposition that force churches to marry gays under threat of legal action. So we agree that the state shouldn’t determine what a church defines as marriage, but since marriage is in fact recognized by the state, there has to be a definition. And I think it should be inclusive, not exclusive.
“Parents have a right to control what worldviews their children are taught.”
-Yes, they do to an extent. If a child is enrolled in a public school, they’ll be taught was is legal in society – hopefully not which is “right or wrong” in the eyes of the church. That should be left to private schools. But teaching that marriages between same-sex couples exist and teaching that they are morally acceptable are two different things.
“Homosexual will not help control the population through lack of procreation, they do it all the time.”
-Well, I wouldn’t say they do it all the time. They do it. But only through surrogacy, not adoption. Adoption is taking a child that already lives and parenting it, not popping out your own kid. This is only anecdotal, but I have to believe as a percentage, there are far more gay couples without kids than than with kids. And even fewer were conceived than adopted. I think this is a sound argument. Now will gays’ lack of kids really help us when India and China make up 1/3 of the worlds population? No.
The way the state defines it now, supercedes the church’s definition. Which opens the doors for all kinds of lawsuits, should someone want to be married at the church. The way the law is right now, you are supporting a proposition that forces churches to marry gays. We are opposed to it, but it is only a matter of time before we are sued under the current legislation.
Unfortunately though, they do teach what is morally acceptable. That is the problem that Christian parents have had in Massachusetts. And as for a five year old, how can they know the difference between what is legally OK, and what their parents are trying to teach them about morals? Such an issue should be decided upon by the parent as to how to go about teaching their children on it, not the public school system. Where teachers already use their classroom to spread their own political agendas both on the left and on the right.
As for gays having kids, surrogate parenting is a lot more common than you think. Heck, my teenage student has already done it. But yes, in reality this is really a mute issue in regards to overall world population. After all countries like Iran don’t even have gay people right?
Kozmo said: “The way the law is right now, you are supporting a proposition that forces churches to marry gays.”
But if you read the May 15 Supreme Court decision, the justices say the EXACT OPPOSITE: “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
We are talking about the definition of CIVIL marriage here. Churches will still be allowed to define marriage however they like.
Thank you, Mistereks! And FYI, I found the PDF of the full Supreme Court decision here if anyone is interested. The passage quoted by Mistereks in on page 117.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
I believe this clause (correct term?) offers protection for churches and pastors who object to same-sex marriage.
Oh well that is good news! I was misinformed about the facts. However, this still does open up the doors to lawsuits. Someone wants to get married, the church says no, and then all of the sudden you have discrimination. I understand the current legislation prohibits that, but up until 4 months ago the current legislation also prohibited homosexuals from marrying each other. All it takes is a lawsuit to change that.
I am relieved to know there is protection for churches, and that does change my mind quite a bit. I still object to the teaching of children about homosexuality at such a young age. It should be the parents right to decide when and how to teach their kids about such a subject, and i doubt any parent of a 5 year old is even thinking about that subject for their children at such a young age.
Also, I firmly believe that the law should be whatever the people vote for. This year’s vote on gay marriage will be, i believe, the third time California has voted on this in the last 10 -15 years. If the people of California want marriage to be between any two people, then it should be law. However the problem here is that the law was not decided by the people, it was decided by the few appointed judges, and frankly that just pisses me off. I think our whole system is screwy when the few have so much control over the many.
Personally, I believe smaller government is better. And so like I said, the state shouldn’t define marriage at all. They may be able to define civil unions, and allow for different religious traditions to qualify for those civil unions, but marriage itself does not belong to the state, it descends from religion, and so it should have always been left to religion. I personally am struggling over the idea of even voting, because I feel as though there are no positions that I agree with, only ones that I disagree with less. That includes this Prop, others, and candidates, especially the presidential ones.
Lastly, who the heck is Mistereks?
Kozmo –
Who the heck is Mistereks? I am a man of mystery!
But I do have a few non-mysterious responses to your most recent comment post.
First, I’m glad I was able to ease your mind about churches being forced to marry same-sex couples or losing their tax-exempt status.
You can also stop worrying about lawsuits. First, though anyone can sue, they have to convince a judge or jury that they have a case. And they have to pay an attorney to make that case for them. Who in their right minds is going to sue when you have language like that facing you, not to mention the First Amendment? Perhaps that’s why, after four years of same-sex marriage, there haven’t been any suits filed against churches there.
“I still object to the teaching of children about homosexuality at such a young age.”
I understand and sympathize. I think virtually all kindergarten teachers do, as well. Not to mention all school boards. Schools are community schools. We elect the school boards. We can go to their meetings. Our community schools are smart enough to present age-appropriate lessons.
I think “the legal and financial aspects of parenthood and marriage” (which is all the California Education Code calls for in terms of marriage-related curriculum) will be discussed when it is appropriate. Probably in high school.
But yes, same-sex marriage is going to be out in the open a bit more. Kids are more likely to come across it, and probably earlier than before. That was happening anyway, even without gay marriage. “Ellen” wins Emmys and brings in big ratings. “Will & Grace” was a hit. Gay people aren’t living our lives in the closet in the way we used to.
Kids will still get most of their information about what makes families from their own. From mom and dad.
However, there may be times when young children need to learn about same-sex couples at school. Maybe one of their classmates is being raised by a same-sex couple. So maybe, to help those kids to better understand something that is relatively unusual in their young lives, they might be read a book like “King & King.” There’s nothing in that book that is unlike any other fairy tale — except that the two characters who unexpectedly fall in love are both men. That is both its power AND what makes it frightening to people. It DOES communicate the idea that, “hey, it’s true — even though most princes go head over heels for princesses, every once in a while, a prince falls for another prince. It’s unusual, but it happens.” But that’s OK, I think. Because it’s true. And the story goes about it in a gentle way.
Anyway, I’ve gone on too long about that. I think I made my point. This is public education. If a creationist parent wants to shield their child from reference to the fossil record or discussions of evolution, they have the same rights of parents who don’t want their kids to hear homosexuality even hinted at in public schools. We don’t stop telling children the truth, even if some parents disagree with it.
“If the people of California want marriage to be between any two people, then it should be law. ”
Except the courts are there partly to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. When would interracial couples have won the right to marry if they had to wait for a majority to approve that right? 1977 instead of 1967? 1997? Would they have it yet?
“Personally, I believe smaller government is better.”
Me too!
“And so like I said, the state shouldn’t define marriage at all.”
But it does. So we ought to treat all couples equally.
“They may be able to define civil unions, and allow for different religious traditions to qualify for those civil unions, but marriage itself does not belong to the state, it descends from religion, and so it should have always been left to religion.”
But it wasn’t. So we ought to treat all couples equally.
“I personally am struggling over the idea of even voting, because I feel as though there are no positions that I agree with, only ones that I disagree with less.”
I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t think you’re alone. But I hope you WILL vote.
Mistereks,
One of the largest road blocks in the dialogue over marriage equality comes from the reality that most straight people don’t know many gay people – and even fewer know a gay person well. I can attest to this because all of my close friends are straight like me. As such, I appreciate hearing your side of the debate. I think your perspective adds some credence to a debate between two straight guys over the future of gay people.
Do you have a blog of your own? If so I’d like to add you to my blog roll.
ianbob — I guess I will be less a man of mystery, but I blog at rationalfeast.blogspot.com.
Thanks for your kind words.
BTW, this sentence — “Perhaps that’s why, after four years of same-sex marriage, there haven’t been any suits filed against churches there.” — should have said “after four years of same-sex marriage IN MASSACHUSETTS…”