rights all intellectually honest, liberty loving, Americans should demand: GAY RIGHTS

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That’s what the law tells us. So what about two individuals of the same sex? Why is it that so many Americans find it immoral for this group of individuals to have the same right – to engage in marriage under the law? Furthermore, how can the legal system justify withholding this right from a certain group of people?

It is a basic tenant of personal property rights that individuals may engage in any personal relationship they wish when their rights do not infringe on anyone else’s property. How can the government limit such a personal relationship, especially when it is between two consenting adults in which there is no victim of their actions?

To quote congressman Ron Paul:

“I think the government should just be out of it (marital rights). I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument…Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me…if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.

In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized…There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.

Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!” (re: Ron Paul)

An honest American will admit that the SINGLE reason the personal relationship between two members of the same sex are constricted is solely due to the Judeo-Christian values are being enforced by the Federal Government and have become the status quo of our American society. No legal, moral, or political reasoning can be given to justify the withholding of such a right to a certain minority in the population. While a religious person may argue that the majority of Americans share these Judeo-Christian beliefs, thus it is justified that the majority rule when it comes to upholding moral philosophies by law; however, how can that be when the law is to be enforced outside and independently of any religious dogma or any majority rule!

The Judeo-Christian moral code is irrelevant in cases of the law! Most religious people would agree that Satanism is immoral; however, the Satanist belief system and practice is protected under the law. Again, other issues that may be viewed as moral vices are protected as well – pornography, intoxication, and lude language, to name a few. Why does society accept these activities, but raise such concerns with homosexuality? Could it be because society, in general, enjoys the right to sometimes utilize such “immoral” behaviors? Yet the majority so willingly and hypocritically advocates the removal of another’s personal and legal rights when it does not interfere with the lives of those making or enforcing the law! Even if one may argue same sex marriage is immoral – they cannot justifiably remove the institutional right under the law!

Only a few decades ago our legal system thought it appropriate to limit the rights of an individual based on race – today we realize that such a notion is completely ridiculous. In the South, blacks were prohibited from eating at certain restaurants, attending the same schools, or even using the same seating section on public transit. To go a step further – it was unheard of for a person of color to engage in a relationship with anyone outside their race. Today it is morally unacceptable to argue such things! So why does society condone the limiting of basic civil and property rights to a person who happens to be attracted to, and fall in love with, a member of the same sex? Who are we so perfect to deem their relationship and feeling unworthy?

To take another approach – what is so immoral about two consenting parties engaging in the ultimate commitment to each other? Can one form an intellectually logical argument against Gay marriage? Can one deny the feelings two responsible adults feel toward each other? Can one deny the positive influence the Gay community has had on neighborhoods across America? (re: The Castro District) Wouldn’t a gay couple engaging in marriage, reaping the emotional and psychological benefits of a stable monogamous relationship be something that all Americans want for our citizens if they so choose? None of this really matters though – as this is a matter of personal liberty and property rights – not one sects view of morality!

The simple fact is this: regardless of your personal feelings and beliefs about homosexuality or Gay marriage, marriage of any kind between two consenting parties is an individual property right – they own the right to whatever relationships they deem necessary for their particular pursuit happiness! The Government has no right – naturally, legally, or constitutionally – to prohibit such a relationship from being formed. Societies current opinion on the issue is irrelevant. I will say this though – history has always sided in favor of civil rights – and in the coming decades we will look back on this restriction of personal relationships as a blemish on par with racism that we so shamefully regret today.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “rights all intellectually honest, liberty loving, Americans should demand: GAY RIGHTS

  1. conservative2cents

    I disagree. The only reason society should be involved in any sexual relationship is the likelihood of producing children. If my wife and I (or any man and woman) were not able to have children, then it would be no one’s business but ours. But, since sexual relations between men and women is how babies are made, it’s worthy of notice when one of those types of relationships begins. “Marriage” is how we try to insure that children are raised by the parties responsible for their existence.

    Otherwise, gay folks may do whatever they like with each other. I don’t care.

    But to call a gay union “marriage” is to diminish the importance we place on the necessity for men and women to promise to stay together. The necessity being that of the likelihood that they will produce children.

    That has nothing to do with religion or whether anyone thinks homosexuality is bad.

    Reply
    1. Atticus Finch Post author

      That is an interesting point.

      “The only reason society should be involved in any sexual relationship is the likelihood of producing children.”

      Well, we know that isn’t true as people engage in sexual relations all the time – even married people – for reasons other than to produce children. They may want to have a physical and emotional bond that is a healthy part of any relationship – without trying to have children. Sex is definitely not only for reproducing. Gay couples engaging in sexual activity do this for the same reason – to bond. My wife and I do not want children yet; however, sex is a healthy part of the relationship.

      Also, you assume that Marriage is only to “insure that children are raised by the parties responsible for their existence.” We know that that isn’t true also, as marriage is also for the benefit of the couple – to form a stronger bond between them and also receive the legal rights and benefits that come with marriage.

      Gay’s want “Marriage” because they want their relationship to be viewed equally by society and the law. It may or may not be a religious engagement (dependent on the couple), but they should be allowed to engage in that relationship under the law.

      To another point – the most recent and thorough studies indicate that gay and lesbian couple’s children are as successful and healthy statistically as children of traditional families. So if Marriage is for children – then there you go. A lot of children need to be adopted out there.

      Reply
      1. conservative2cents

        I’m fine with gay couples adopting. I think that if they want to raise children, they’re already in the right frame of mind to do so. But, they’ll never produce a child accidentally, like you and your wife may.

        I know a young girl whose boyfriend got her pregnant. He bolted. Now she has to raise a baby by herself. Wouldn’t it have been better if before they started engaging in the activity that produces children, the guy had promised to stick around? That’s what marriage is for (at least in part).

        Love, marriage, baby carriage. That’s the preferred track. For thousands of years. There’s a reason for that. Marriage is MAINLY about children. You have to deny that in order to extend it to “any two people”.

        This whole “sex isn’t JUST for producing children” hurts children.

        Obviously, there are other reasons people have sex, but let’s not forget that the reason sex exists is to make babies.

        Reply
        1. Atticus Finch Post author

          I agree that an advantage to being married before sexual relations is for the stability of a potential family unit; however, I do not understand your argument against Gay Marriage.

          How would extending marriage to Gay couples deteriorate the nature and importance of marriage between straight couples?

          My original argument was that gay couples should be allowed to be married – I think that still stands.

          Reply
          1. conservative2cents

            It’s not “an advantage of”… It’s a reason for.

            Pro-gay marriage folks say the same thing you’re arguing. That children have nothing to do with marriage. If that’s true, then why get married? Only property? Only recognition of my love for this other person? Your love for a woman means nothing to me or society. Nothing. Until… A baby comes into the picture. WE need you to raise that kid. We need to recognize your loving relationship and elevate it because WE need you to stick around IN CASE you and your “partner” produce children.

            When a woman gets pregnant, it’s not just lucky if she just happens to have entered into a property contract with the guy who just happened to end up impregnating her.

            Let’s put it this way. I lived with my wife before we got married. Folks said, “You need to get married. I hope she doesnt get pregnant.”

            Then we got married. Five years later, we had our first child. Then folks said, “What took so long?”

            Marriage has a LOT to do with the fact that it takes one man and one woman to produce children.

            You have to deny that to BE ABLE to extend it to any other human relationship.

            Ever wonder why it’s only two people? Why not more? Because that’s how many people it takes to make a baby. But it can’t be “any two people”. It has to be two people of the opposite sex.

            It’s not a coincidence that for thousands of years, marriage has been one man and one woman. That’s the only two person sexual relationship that is capable of producing children.

            That a gay couple loves each other means nothing to society. That a man and woman love each other WOULD mean nothing but for the possibility of producing children.

            Reply
    2. Atticus Finch Post author

      Your argument is that the reason for marriage is to provide a unit to raise children. Since only the production of children can be done by a man and a woman and for that reason marriage should be a protected institution. A failure to protect this institution is a danger to children. I disagree and here’s why:

      1. In our society, as we have concluded, marriage is not only for the children, but also for the stability of the couple. Certain benefits come from the institution that all couples who want to be married deserve. Such as joint ownership, various legal reasons, commitment to monogamy, etc.

      2. What if gay couples want to adopt a child? Wouldn’t they be just as responsible for that child as a couple who gave birth to a child? Thus, wouldn’t marriage be an important institution for them as well? They can’t produce a child, but they certainly can obtain a child which is the same thing.

      3. Marriage is a legal right and regarding a personal relationship. This should not and cannot be controlled by the law based on property and natural civil rights. As I argued in the original article.

      4. There is absolutely no reason to believe that by expanding the right to be married to homosexuals that it would deteriorate the importance of marriage especially when it comes to children. Your argument hinges on the importance of the institution of marriage for the protection of children. How is expanding this right to gays going to effect that at all? Furthermore, marriage is not required to begin with for children – while I would agree it is a good thing – I believe your argument is moot.

      5. You have basically said that you think Gays can do anything they want including adoption and engage in “marriage like” relationships, but just don’t call it marriage. Maybe just call it a civil union or matrimony instead. That is just an argument of semantics and would be pointless.

      In business we often take a risk based approach when we make decisions. I simply do not see any risks what so ever in granting gay people the right to marriage – if anything – only benefits.

      Reply
      1. conservative2cents

        1. Children are the reason for the need for a stable relationship.

        2. Gay couples who adopt ARE held responsible for the children in their care. It doesn’t take a redefinition to accomplish that.

        3. Marriage is a legal right that concerns different genders. Abortion has been determined to be a right. May I get an abortion? It’s a legal right. Can I demand an abortion? No! I’m a guy.

        4. When you insist that marriage doesn’t have anything to do with children, fewer people will feel obligated to get married before they start making babies.

        5. It’s not a matter of semantics. Words mean things. Marriage means a union between one man and one woman. For all the reasons I give.

        Once you take children out of marriage, anything goes. At that point, why limit marriage to two people? Why limit it to a loving sexual relationship? Why not extend marriage to three lifelong bachelor roomies?

        Reply
        1. Atticus Finch Post author

          Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          I find no evidence that expanding the definition of marriage will in any way discourage men and women from enjoying the benefit of marriage. I see no evidence that expanding the definition will in any way endanger children or their well being.

          I agree that it is healthy for children to have their parents there to raise them – however, in no way does the definition of marriage impact that fact. The only thing the current definition of marriage does is discriminate against a certain subset of individuals.

          Your presupposition is that by expanding the law to include gay couples in marriage rights is that it will somehow cause a domino effect resulting in the deterioration of the family unit and thus hurt children – that is a fallacy – at best.

          I see the expansion of the definition as an element of human rights. Allowing a minority live their lives – and allow their children more security by having married parents. Marriage promotes monogamy, stability, and unity – if anything it will help society and children – not hurt it.

          Also – I don’t like the federal government – or any government – imposing their rules upon civilians personal relationships. We have enough government.

          Reply
          1. conservative2cents

            I have to ask: If it no longer means one man and one woman, why would you limit marriage to two people? Why not three people? You use the word “monogamous”. Will you presume to impose a two person marriage idea on those who would prefer to have more people in their “marriage”?

            See what I’m saying? That’s what we have to deal with when we start saying that the reason for the institution of marriage has nothing to do with the fact that one man and one woman is all it takes to produce children.

            Reply
  2. Pingback: Top 11 posts of 2011 «

  3. Pingback: Why a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage is Illogical « BlogTruth

  4. Pingback: Chick-fil-a and Measuring the Pulse of Society on Gay Marriage « BlogTruth

  5. breeannemcmahon

    Had to come check out your blog. It isn’t often you can have a level-headed conversation with anyone concerning politics.
    I absolutely love this! This is the point I try to make with everyone when it comes to gay marriage. At the political core this is literally no argument against it. Fabulous!
    Keep on keepin on!

    Reply
    1. Atticus Post author

      Thanks for checking out the blog! And I agree – it is certainly difficult to have a level-headed conversation. Even when I disagree I think both sides are worth being heard.

      Reply
  6. Pingback: N.M. Supreme Court rules Photographers Can’t Refuse Gay Weddings | BlogTruth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s