Quote:
Originally posted by AlethiaSi
i completely agree.... its NOT right... i think that its amazing that people run around trying to tell other people what they can and can not do.... we have enough issues in this world... just because YOU think its not right... then all the sudden other people have to believe it too?
(i'm not attacking anyone on this board- this is what i believe... i would be a complete hypocrite if i said that this is the way all people should think.... i don't think that everyone should have my beliefs... we have one of me in this world- we don't need a bunch more  )
|
The function of government is to tell its people what they can and cannot do. That's why we have laws. So the age old argument that it's not "right" to do that is an oversimplification of the issue. It's much more complicated.
There is the school of thought that America is a country founded on Christian virtues. Among the many beliefs that Christians hold, there is the belief that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred thing. In the Catholic Church, for example, it's a sacrament -- on the same level as baptism, the eucharist, confession, last rites, etc. Their main point of contention is that this is just another step on the slippery slope that will eventually remove all semblance of moral values from the fabric of our legal system.
Another group of people (and often the same people) have financial reasons for not wanting gay marriage. There is no question that it will cost society money. The biggest hit will be on our insurance premiums. There are many gay people, for example, that are HIV positive. They would be taking money out of the insurance system by qualifying for benefits through their married partner, resulting in potentially higher rates for everyone. Financially, there is also the question of gay divorce. Marriages without children are (and this is just a guess) probably more likely to dissolve. I'm guessing a lot more gay marriages end up in mediation, but that's another potential argument -- the hit it'll take on the family court system. There are many financial arguments opponents use against gay marriage, these are just a few of them. They question whether it's right that they be made to pay for something that they find morally reprehensable.
Those are the two biggies as far as opponents to this go.
If they can get past the former of the two objections, which I think many have. As I mentioned earlier, the Washington Times did a poll involving over 1200 people that found a slight majority favored civil unions -- all of the same legal benefits as "marriage" without the m-word.
What does that survey show? To me it shows that people are getting hung up on a word. "Marriage". As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the church defines marriage as a contract between the couple and God while the state defines it as a contract between two individuals under the laws of the state. To the church being married in a courtroom and married in a church are in fact two different things. My parents were originally married in a courtroom. Later, when they started attending church, the priest got on 'em to be married in the church. I see much of this argument as the Christian-led moralists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
People are way too hung up on labels and semantics. The only valid argument against gay marriage in my mind is the financial one -- and for that, to be consistant, one should also be against civil unions. Folks are not consistant on this point, therefore, they are inconsistant and really don't know what they believe.
Threaded Mode