Friday, October 24, 2008
Prop 8
Since I didn't post a blog last week, I decided to post another blog about my views on California's Proposition 8. If you have not yet seen the video that Professor DeVitto sent us, I posted it at the bottom of my blog.
Personally, I am against this particular proposition because, like the pastors featured in this video, I believe in the separation of church and state and that the government should not have the right to dictate who can marry who. Since I am Adventist, I do observe and believe in the Biblical views of homosexuality, however, my religious affiliation and the religious or moral beliefs of anyone in congress does not give the government grounds to impose their values on everyone, including homosexuals. If this proposition passes, the whole basis of the amendment is flawed and it would have to be altered in a way that the basic rights and freedoms of every American does not apply to all citizens. Why do we care so much about gay marriage? How would their marital union affect us as a state? I think we should focus on the real problem that is plaguing many marriages today: finding a way to make them last and decreasing the divorce rate. Just my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I too believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe that the government shouldn't impose a way of life upon citizens. However, there are other issues at play here. I actually happened to have a conversation with my mom about this one, so I'll try and give you a brief summary. Let's hope it's brief.
For starters, did you know that there actually is an option besides marriage open to homosexuals? There are "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships," (depending what country you're in) which to my understanding share the same legal rights as marriage. So then, why the big deal about marriage? It's because homosexuals want to be TREATED equally. They already get the same rights, but they want the same title, too.
But as we've been talking about in class, what's in a name is actually VERY important. Let's take a brief detour into the terminology of the matter. I just looked up marriage in the dictionary and it says "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
Keywords: "Man & Woman", "RELIGIOUS ceremonies"
Which tells us two things... why should a homosexual union which defies the very definition of marriage ever be CALLED a "marriage"? It's an oxymoron.
Secondly, there is a religious component (recognized by multiple religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) that cannot be ignored when considering the issue. Marriage IS a religious (as well as legal) institution. To allow gay marriage is to say that religions are condoning the issue. Heck, it's priests who carry out the ceremonies!
So to sum up, it's not like Prop. 8 is imposing restrictions on homosexual unions. It's simply denying them the right to "marriage." By both logical (the oxymoron thing) and religious standards (these religions don't condone homosexuality), gay marriage just should not exist. To allow it is to send mixed signals.
The end. Hope that wasn't too long.
I am completely against proposition 8, as well. Despite our personal feelings about gay marriage, it is not the governments role to restrict it. Moreover, it doesn't make sense. Why would the government take a moral stance and impose laws on homosexuality and not infidelity. Why is one immoral behavior worse than another? Infidelity is actually breaking one of the ten commandments. I do believe that "though shalt not commit adultery" comes before "thou shalt allow two dudes to get married". This is just one example of the many prevalent cases of immorality in the world. Why choose to restrict gay marriage? If the government is going to impose moral regulations they should extend those regulations to ALL immorality.
Post a Comment