I believe this entire debate centers around the word "marriage." When people hear the word marriage they automatically assume it is talking about a religious ceremony. This assumption is tragically flawed, however, as the proposal refers to the contract of marriage, by which the married couple is capable of sharing property, deciding on life support, and being able to act in their partners stead.
For those who said no to this proposal, I ask you this: What if the wording was changed, lets call it civil union, would you be opposed to allowing same-sex couples the same rights as those listed above for traditional married couples? And supposing that this contract called civil union is uniform regardless of race, sex, age, or social status, would you still oppose it?
For those who still oppose it, I ask you why? Is it because you feel it is disgusting, somehow grotesque? But, if an unattractive relationship is the reason for your opposition, then why allow morbidly obese people to marry? Why allow people who have been disfigured by an accident to marry?
For those who feel it is somehow immoral, who are you to judge morality? To base morality and legislation off of the Bible is to impress your beliefs upon another citizen of the United States. In fact, the only basis of morality that is arguably universal within our country is that it is wrong to infringe upon another persons rights unless to not do so would present a clear and present danger to our country.
And lastly, for those who argue that marriage is a tradition, and it was traditional for marriage to mean a union between a man and a woman, you present a logical fallacy. Because we've done something for centuries, or even millenia, doesn't make that action right. Slavery used to be an accepted practice for thousands of years, conquerers enslaving the conquered. But did that make it right? No, and neither does the religious tradition of marriage make it right to exclude same sex couples from participating in the legal practice of marriage.
Does allowing gays to have a legal marriage contract harm you in any capacity? Does it infringe upon your rights in society? Does it degrade the value of a marriage contract?
The answer to all these questions is no. But let's reverse the question. Does not allowing gays to engage in legal marriage harm them in any way? Yes. Does it infringe upon their rights in society? Absolutely.
Allowing gay marriage is the only rational, logical, and indeed, moral decision one can arrive at. The right thing to do is to not interrupt a fellow citizens pursuit of happiness because you don't agree with how they achieve it.
1 comment:
I believe this entire debate centers around the word "marriage." When people hear the word marriage they automatically assume it is talking about a religious ceremony. This assumption is tragically flawed, however, as the proposal refers to the contract of marriage, by which the married couple is capable of sharing property, deciding on life support, and being able to act in their partners stead.
For those who said no to this proposal, I ask you this: What if the wording was changed, lets call it civil union, would you be opposed to allowing same-sex couples the same rights as those listed above for traditional married couples? And supposing that this contract called civil union is uniform regardless of race, sex, age, or social status, would you still oppose it?
For those who still oppose it, I ask you why? Is it because you feel it is disgusting, somehow grotesque? But, if an unattractive relationship is the reason for your opposition, then why allow morbidly obese people to marry? Why allow people who have been disfigured by an accident to marry?
For those who feel it is somehow immoral, who are you to judge morality? To base morality and legislation off of the Bible is to impress your beliefs upon another citizen of the United States. In fact, the only basis of morality that is arguably universal within our country is that it is wrong to infringe upon another persons rights unless to not do so would present a clear and present danger to our country.
And lastly, for those who argue that marriage is a tradition, and it was traditional for marriage to mean a union between a man and a woman, you present a logical fallacy. Because we've done something for centuries, or even millenia, doesn't make that action right. Slavery used to be an accepted practice for thousands of years, conquerers enslaving the conquered. But did that make it right? No, and neither does the religious tradition of marriage make it right to exclude same sex couples from participating in the legal practice of marriage.
Does allowing gays to have a legal marriage contract harm you in any capacity? Does it infringe upon your rights in society? Does it degrade the value of a marriage contract?
The answer to all these questions is no. But let's reverse the question. Does not allowing gays to engage in legal marriage harm them in any way? Yes. Does it infringe upon their rights in society? Absolutely.
Allowing gay marriage is the only rational, logical, and indeed, moral decision one can arrive at. The right thing to do is to not interrupt a fellow citizens pursuit of happiness because you don't agree with how they achieve it.
Post a Comment