Well the California State legislature became the first to pass a bill allowing same sex marriage today.
Well better late than never. Its nice that we are finally catching up to our supposed roots of a country founded on the concept of freedom and tolerance. It has amazed me to no end the uproar caused over two people wanting to have their union officially recognised. I mean its not like same sex couples are going to change. It is not like this suddenly legitimizes them. They were already legitimate. If you think not then you have never known personally two people of the same gender that were bound in their love for one another. This is simply a long overdue recognition of the fact that some people form pair bonds with the same sex. And that as we recognize those pair bonds between a man and woman we should give no less recognition to those that form it man to man or woman to woman. I hope that all 50 states soon follow.
What are those against this afriad of? That there will be no marriages between man and woman if we make it acceptable to be married to someone of the same sex? Please. That it is a Sin? Hell it never even says out and out in the bible that sex between people of the same gender is evil. It says it was a practice of the people of Soddam and Gomorrah and that they were evil people. Not that this was what made them evil. Be nice if some actually read the good book rather than spouting off nonsense about it. What about love your neighbor ? Hmmmmm ? Judging not lest ye be Judged ? If the act of homosexuality is abhorrent to God then God will take care of those errant ways in good time. Feel free to make it known you do not approve as you have every right to your opinion on the matter. But no one has a right to say who it is right for another to Love. And who it is wrong to Love. And it certainly is not the Governments Job to say what bonds of love shall be recognized and which shall not. The governemnt is to provide equality for all walks and persuasions inso much as it does not interfere with the rights of others. The desire of two consenting adults to form a partnership has no bearing on any other persons rights, and as such should not be denied any rights accorded other such partnerships.
Churches have every right to NOT accept this. They have every right to refuse to perform a ceremony joining two people of the same sex in Holy Matrimony. Just as others have every right TO accept it and to perform such ceremonies. It is not the governemnts right however. Nor is it the right of the majority to decide that the minority cannot enjoy the same freedoms. How many times must we travel down this road before we realize there is more to democracy than the popular will of the people? We elect representatives and leaders not just to do what we want them to. But for them to make the decisions in the best intrest of all. Whether or not they are popular decisions.
I hate to think what my Beloved South would be today if we merely allowed the popular opinion of those in power to rule the day. Democracy allows us to escape the tyranny of the many as well as that of the few. Making choices of morality for others is something that should always be avoided. Lay down the rules of wrong and right. But do not mistake your morality as the last judgement on what is right and wrong. Do not think to save people from themselves as just perhaps all they want is to be saved from your judgements. Just as you have the right to disagree with them so to they have the right to disagree with you. And it is that Freedom which is so precious. And so worth dying for that countless lives have been lost and untold gallons of blood spilt to provide for this country.
For once my hat is off to California. They done right.
1 comment:
Intresting way to look at it. I figured that particular line would draw a response. I chose very crude way of putting child birth on purpose. Has no particular bearing on my feelings for my mother or other women in my life. Fucking is a crude refference to the act of sexual intercourse. And Child birth is indeed an event which is often bloody, there is generally screaming and in modern delivery drugs are almost universal. I was merely pointing out that we often gloss over the details of a fundamental act of our existence. I chose to do so by going to the opposite extreme in discribing that event from the way it is typically done... if at all.
As for your conclusions about me? Well I personally disagree with you and think your a bit to taken with Freudian views. However given the sample you had to work with I can't say its a surprising conclusion.
I look forward to hearing more of your views. Kind of wondering where you get lack of compassion to women in my life and sexual ambiguities from what you have had to read. I suppose your taking that comment that brought you heer along with this post about Gay Marriage and concluding I am perhaps a sexually confused person that is angry at women. But you are working with a very small sample there... I would suggest being a bit more patient before drawing such conclusions. In general I would preffer to hear more what you have to say in response to the posts, as afterall that is what the idea is... to discuss the issues at hand. Not draw conclusions about the person behind the post. Which fallacy that is in a discussion is slipping my mind at the moment but your post would largely be a prime example of it... ad hominen perhaps ?
Post a Comment