I Disagree Part Three: Homomarriage
Marriage is a human right not a heterosexual privilege:
I disagree, and I will tell you why.
Marriage is a partnership in the views of both the church and the state. Whether or not they chose to view homosexual partnerships as a marriage is irrelevant to the human rights issue.
A human right, if such a thing exists, is something that is above both the church and state. Rights are something that a society imposes on itself, not something that either the church or state imposes on society- just because the government says you have the right to life and a couple other things does not make it true. In fact, you do not have the right to life- the church (God) handles that department, but the government has the right to tax.
Agreed.
posted by Mr Ryan Mix at 10:59 AM
4 Comments:
fuck the union between church and state. times change. so have we. if heterosexual people get to do it, so should homosexuals. For those who believe in God, why would he create people who love others of their own sex when it is supposedly sacreligious?! The majority of people need to realize that being gay is not a choice, It is part of who they are. Where is the fairness of giving straight couples the freedom to epress their love openly and really own it, and tell gay couples that they are not allowed to say their vows. Prejudice...that is how i see it. People's stubborness and beliefs that God would tell someone to be someone else when who and what they are doesnt even HURT ANYONE.
Fri Jan 13, 11:23:00 AM 2006
So if heterosexual people get to do it (vaginal intercourse), so should homosexuals? Unfortunately, that is physically impossible. Sure that is a ridiculously literal interpretation, but I am making the point that heterosexuals and homosexuals are not equal- they are not the same thing.
Regardless, I think you misunderstood the original statement. My disagreement with marriage being a human right has nothing to do with any sexual orientation, being fair, or any relationship between the church and state or lack there of. Marriage (not marriage between two people of the same gender- just marriage) is a partnership in the eyes of, at very least, the state, and in most cases the church in which the couple chooses to make their vows. Those organizations may decide how they choose on the issue and their decision may or may not be fair, but whatever their decision may be, that is not relevant to the human rights issue.
My only point, which I will make perfectly clear, is that marriage is not a human right.
Interestingly enough, Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations in 1948 so declares that:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
According to this, men and women may not be discriminated against in the pursuit of marriage based on their race, nationality, or religion. Even though this article omits any protection of marriage based on sexual orientation or preference, I still believe it to be void based on what I see to be true human rights: rights which are imposed by the society rather than the church, state, country, or United Nations.
In The United States of America, a homosexual partnership has, for the most part, been accepted. It may be a matter of time before a government adopts a clause restricting such discrimination, but even if they do, and even if they call it a human right, we should not take it for granted as such.
I should ask what things are human rights: a father; a baptism; a vote; a prayer; a job; a church which accepts you; an attorney; a confession? These are all good things which should be available, but are not human rights. These are things which the church or state grant based on specific criteria which meets their own requirements. In this way, they are creating their own fraternity. I see the church and the state not as the as the deciders of human rights, but as the defenders of their own agenda which may or may not parallel the peoples' view of human rights.
In summation, the people, based on their beliefs, decide what is a right. We can assume this to be very little considering virtually nothing in life is a given but those trues we hold to be self evident. Our church and our state will defend our rights not as the governor- but as the enforcer.
Fri Jan 13, 11:09:00 PM 2006
I hate to tell you this, but homosexual parterships have NOT been accepted in the United States. They are being persecuted all the time. And now...you think because the declaration stated something years and years ago...that the people dont have the right to change it? They have to live with what people believed years ago? I dont think so. As I said...times change, people change. Homosexualtiy was seen as a sin and THAT is why it is in the declaration. You are trying to tell me that 2 people of the same gender engaging in a partership does not constitute as a family?! They have the right to adopt a child since they obviously dont have the capability to conceive on their own. Does that not equal 2 parents and a child? Hell..they might even have a dog. A little FAMILY going on. With a white picket fence and a fucking rose garden.
So...if a man and woman adopt a child... why can't a couple of the SAME SEX do it?
THey say marraige between 2 heterosexuals are prtoected by the state?
WHat? does gay marraige threaten it? They can't blame it on the fact that only heterosexuals create life...because this world is already GROSSLY overpopulated. IF they were smart...they would encourage homosexual relationships.
And no. Gays have not been accepted...just because youve been around people who do accept it...doesnt mean it has mostly been accepted throughout the rest of the state or the country.
And there ARE churches who would willingly marry two homosexual people...but the government is the one saying NO.
Sun Jan 15, 12:01:00 PM 2006
The statement I made about homosexual partnerships being accepted, I must admit, was done without thorough research, and the words leave some interpretation to be made. I should have said that the majority of American’s have accepted homosexual partnerships. This, research shows to be true- and the percentage of Americans who do accept homosexual partnership is growing (http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lwnews179.htm; - other polls reflect this trend) to the point where I do expect our state governments (marriage is a state license) to adopt legislation which prohibits such discrimination. Still, at the current time, you are correct that there still is a strong opposition to this movement.
My statement regarding The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not reflect my personal opinion or any opposition to reforming it, and I think it very offensive to announce my thoughts in the contrary especially considering I declared using the document to defend either argument in this debate to be void based on the disconnect between marriage and human rights. Marriage is either a state license, a sacred bond, or both. No state license (that I am aware of) is guaranteed as a human right- even the so-called “right to vote,” one of our most basic rights, has its restrictions. To call it a human right and not give it to all humans is clearly a contradiction. As for the sacred bond of marriage, each church may decide what it will. The people may have the right to freedom of religion, but those religions may make their own rules on marriage (in the sense of a sacred bond, not a legal license) which our states are powerless to overturn.
To call this discrimination “unequal” is an understatement, but to attempt to make such a situation equal would be an exercise in futility. It should be our goal to make it fair. Clearly it is not to give equal opportunity by offering the choice to marry someone of the opposite gender, but not the same gender. I hesitate to say it would be fair to grant the opportunity to marry someone of the same gender only because there are so many deeply rooted civil laws; many of which would be a positive asset of the homosexual marriage and contribute to the process of building a family, but also many of which are gender sensitive and would not function appropriately.
This brings me to respond to your question: No, I am not trying to tell you that two people of the same gender engaging in a partnership does not constitute a family. I made no such statement. Any good definition (in my mind) makes no mention of gender or even biological relations. Both same gender partnerships and adoption are clearly within the family domain.
Many states legislators believe that heterosexual marriage is threatened by the prospect of homosexual marriage because of the legal implications. Many churches believe that heterosexual marriage is threatened by the prospect of homosexual marriage because it takes the presence of gender out of the definition of family. Both of these concerns are valid and need to be dealt with delicately before any change is made- not because change is bad, but because change too fast and without preparation is bad. Everything to do with marriage was done with the implication of it being a life long partnership between one man and one woman. It would be foolish to simply grant everyone the right to marry whoever they want without first carefully studying what it will affect and how it will affect it.
The issue of overpopulation in this world is something I think about everyday, and it’s interesting that you should tie it into this discussion. Encouraging homosexual relations might deter some new population growth, but it does not seem that the opposition to homosexual marriage is very interested.
Mon Jan 16, 08:15:00 PM 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home