Gay Marriage?
2009 April 28
Miss California said “In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” We went ahead and reviewed/discussed our views and opinions (sort of) about the issue. Listen and let us know what you think! … Download it here!
Unfortunately, as Brendan stated, separation of person and religion by governmental means is impossible. And the problem with religion is that it hinders a person’s ability to freely choose what they believe. Religions establish a system of beliefs that people then follow; thus eliminating free-will.
Voting then becomes a matter of the church, rather than the individual, as churches often tell their followers how to cast his/her ballot. Then we’re back to the age old problem of separation of church and state. We’ve merely replaced the church’s hand with those of its followers.
On matters like the death penalty, abortion, or gay marriage, religious persons need only look to their respective churches on making choices. This surrender of free will is merely the first step towards admittance to lack of intelligence. An intelligent person is thought to be capable of making his or her own decisions based on factual representation.
To some people’s surprise, the Bible is a quite outdated source for current events and does not contain factual representations. And it’s hard to judge its relevance on gay marriage today, considering the time period it was written. People were dying of famines, wars, natural disasters, etc. Marriage between a man and a woman propelled our species into the future through pro-creation. It’s no wonder it was advocated so heavily during a time when death seemed to be around every corner.
Now the world is facing over population as cities are becoming over crowded, jobs are scarce, and schools are packed full of children. Gay marriage would certainly help to alleviate some of this population swelling, with the union eliminating any chance of pro-creation. In fact, adoption rates for homosexual couples tend to be very high relative to traditional couples and would put otherwise disadvantaged children in the hands of willing and caring parents. (Homosexual couples tend to be found in higher income brackets as well, which translates to better care for their children)
The main frustration in this argument is that Prop 8 passed in a democratic election. This system does not allow for discrimination in the voting process and affords every citizen equal opportunity to vote anonymously.
The voters have spoken, and a majority of Californians have supported the ban on gay marriage. There is no disputing that. The only question now is why? Why would someone vote to make our system less equal? Why would someone deny another citizen the same rights in hospital care, pension plans, medical insurance, and company fringe benefits? Why would someone vote against something that only has an upside for society?
Some say it’s expensive. Others says it’s how they were raised. Still more claim it’s what they believe. Either way, it will be debated for years to come. But if history has been perceived as a looking glass into the future, then this issue isn’t going away anytime soon. Equality will find its way.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661