Earlier, someone mentioned the issue of changes in morality as society progresses. Will society just change its morals to suit public opinion? In defense, I would say that while public opinion on morality may change, the purpose of the government as an upholder of rights should not.
But what of your example of pro-pedophilia groups in the United States? Might gay rights pave the way to pedophiles' rights? I don’t believe this is a relevant example. The problem with pedophilia mainly concerns the question of whether the child has the maturity to make the decision to lend his/her body to such an act with full knowledge of the physical and psychological consequences; if such an act is done without the child’s decision to do so and the child suffers psychological harm as a result (which may not always happen, but should never happen at all), his/her right to happiness has been denied. If, however, it can be proven that the child can and does consent to the act (and let it be known that I think such a notion exists only in the wishful thinking of the perpetrator), it would no longer be constitutional to make this act illegal.
Of course, I am not saying it is morally right to do so; whether it is ethically wrong is still a big problem. But remember: the government doesn’t serve to uphold ethical standards. As you have mentioned earlier, ethics and morals may—and will—change as society progresses. And as I have mentioned, the role of the government should not.
So if anyone has any more issues with the ethics of gay marriage, let him go ahead and protest the ethics—it is fully within his constitutional rights to do so. Perhaps he can even start organizations to condone it, or churches to offer aid. However, let him not force the government into a role it was not intended for.
Am done ranting now. See the work of my hands! It sounds all professional and braggy and falsely mature, like a teen blog should.
And abortion is like taking away someone’s potential to be amazing.
And this shall be the only and last time I write about a political issue.
I
think
I may regret this several years from now.
Lalalalawarondrugs.
You'd be killer at debate.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding.
:)
So join!!
The problem I and many others have with gay marriage do not stem from a christian or religious belief, but stem from the fact that the point of marriage is to reproduce.
ReplyDeleteWhy do two people regardless of sex get "married"? Marriage in my opinion is based around reproduction.
One of the main reasons we live is to reproduce to create more of ourselves so our race can endure and survive.
I know what your thinking, "We can just have sex without marriage". But who would raise the person that is created?
The family system is there to raise the person in a way so that he can further benefit society so that the human race can further evolve and make us and our world more efficient. This arguement can go on for hours and hours with no end.
This is just my opinion.
-Dal
I get what you're saying. But if your purpose is to promote reproduction, I seriously doubt not acknowledging a gay couple as a valid couple will lower the number of gays in the US. It's like saying not acknowledging schizophrenia as a valid disease will make the number of schizophrenics go down in the US.
ReplyDeleteI recognize gays, I have nothing against them. Im just against the term 'gay marriage'. You can still be a 'couple' without getting married.
ReplyDeleteMy point was marriage is a system set up to make more of ourselves and to raise the child so he can benefit society. A gay marriage fails to accomplish that.
-Dal
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletebut then the sterilized and castrated and impotent men and women who have hit menopause should be forbidden from marrying as well...
ReplyDeletebut gay people who will bear kids through sperm donors or carriers or, eventually, modified gametes, or adopt children should be able to marry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_957_(2007)
On the contrary, we could argue gay marriage is in favor of procreation:
ReplyDeleteWhy recognize gay marriage if the purpose of marriage is to rear children? Gays would have no need for marriage, many assume
However, in the year 2000, 96% of counties within the US (there are 3,140 total) had at least one gay couple with a child.
By not recognizing gay marriage as a civil union, we're actually making it harder for gay couples to obtain and raise children, which, as you mentioned, was the primary purpose in marriage.
Many are definitely determined to "raise the child so he can benefit society." In helping them obtain and raise their children, we are promoting procreation and social progress.
If that didn't work too well, he says it better than I do: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/a/marriageamend_5.htm
I dont know what's in the first post (it says post deleted). But your talking about a woman and man who are married who cannot create an offspring.
ReplyDeleteWell then the whole education system will have to be revamped.
Sex ed teaches the interaction between male and female parts.
Will they be forced to teach the interaction between male and male or female and female parts then as part of the course?
Or how about the young girl with two fathers? Who is going to instruct her about her sexuality? Who will be there to console her? One of her fathers?
About the "traditional marriages" that cannot produce children, one partner is more than likely to have a medical condition preventing reproduction.
homosexuality is not a medical condition.
If the person who is raising you is gay/lesbian there is a higher chance of the child becoming gay/lesbian. Thus destroying traditional marriage, not totally but it will do some damage.
On top of that homosexuality is a choice, a behaviour. Behaviours dont have associated rights. Its unnatural, if everyone was gay mankind would have died out ages ago.
One last point, if a man can marry another man why cant a man marry a cow or a pig, or even his sister or father?
A late reply.
ReplyDeleteOn Sex Ed: yes, perhaps they will be.
On the girl with two fathers:
Yes, one of her fathers.
Quoting the American Psychological Association's Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children:
WHEREAS research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001)
On orientation of children as a result of the environmental influence of gay parents:
Quoting J. Michael Bailey, "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," published in the Jan. 1995 issue of Developmental Psychology:
"55 gay or bisexual men were recruited who reported on 82 sons at least 17 years of age. More than 90% of sons whose sexual orientations could be rated were heterosexual. Furthermore, gay and heterosexual sons did not differ on potentially relevant variables such as the length of time they had lived with their fathers. Results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons' sexual orientation is not large."
On homosexuality being a choice:
There have been gay suicides. I'd think most people would choose living straight over dying, don't you? And as a lolicon, I would like to say this was _not_ my choice--in fact, I quite hate it.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
On incest and bestiality: I don't see any problem with any sort of relationship as long as both sides are psychologically capable of consenting.