Go ahead. Site me statistics about how Homosexual couples have a higher percentage of sexually transmitted disease, a higher frequency of a history of childhood abuse, and I’ll explain to you how those statistics are skewed and often inaccurate. Maybe I’ll even site a few statistics about how minorities are oppressed or why Homosexuals make great couples, friends, and parents. Blah, blah, blah.
None of that matters though because asking the Government to enforce laws controlling personal relationships is wrong.
Most people who argue for a Constitutional ban on Gay Marriage do so for religious reasons declaring “sodomy is an abomination!” However, as I’ve argued so many times before: you can’t legislate morality nor should the Government be able to make personal relationships between two consenting adults illegal.
Besides, a law preventing Gay marriage will in no way prevent two men, who wish to do so, from having sex.
I suppose in principal I understand where the Religious right are coming from. The religious do not want to condone or encourage homosexuality, so naturally they want a law banning a fundamental relationship. Right? However, legally and philisophically, demanding the Government to enforce a law banning ANY personal relationship is more immoral than the “abomination” the evangelicals are trying to prevent.
Giving the Government permission to dictate personal lives
My biggest critique on most conservatives is that they all demand “limited Government!”, but are all too willing to use that same Government to enforce laws when it suits them or justifies their “moral” code. We can’t, and shouldn’t, have it both ways!
Limited Government means, you guessed it, limited! That means the Government doesn’t over-tax, doesn’t intervene in our personal relationships, and most of all is never used by the majority to control the minority.
The problem with Government is when you give it permission to dictate personal relationships you have opened a door for control that has the potential to go too far. It could be your relationship or your privacy that you are defending next.
Instead we should leave it up to society to make moral decisions. In this way Evangelicals can try to peacefully convert as many homosexuals that will listen and the Non-Religious can listen or ignore them as they desire. Giving this responsibility to an institution who could at any time go to far and infringe on all of our human and personal rights is just too risky. Besides – it makes no sense for the Government to spend time and tax dollars voting on what personal relationship you see fit for yourself.
We should never, at any time, advocate Government interference in the private lives of the citizens.
Times they are a Changin’
It wasn’t too long ago a Christian was trying to explain to me that it was a sin for two people of opposite races to have a relationship. Go a little further back and the Government decided that was illegal too. Looking back almost everyone, even many Evangelicals, realize that attitude is call racism and is evil.
It seems we still have a little further to go in the human rights department. I wonder if our children or grand children will look back on all this, like we look back on segregation, and wonder what they hell society was thinking.
It’s funny how some people call things progress and other people call it sin.