Friday, May 20, 2005

It's About "Marriage Restrictions" Not "Rights"

The battle over "Gay Marriage Rights" is a battle that is misnamed. They should be honest and say they want "Less Marriage Restrictions."

When you ask their side why they want to redefine marriage, they have two responses. Let's examine both.

(1) - First response of Gay Rights Activists: "We want the same rights as you have."

Comment: "You do. You have the same rights by having the same restrictions.

You have the same limitations on marriage as I do. I cannot marry a 7 year old. I cannot marry someone who is already married. I cannot marry two people at the same time. I cannot marry a person of the same sex. We have exactly the same rights, by way of having the exact same restrictions.

So, what you really want is to remove the restriction to be able to marry a person of the same sex. So, let's be honest, you don't want the same rights, you want more rights.



(2) - Next response of Gay Rights Activists: "You can marry the person you love, why can't I?"

Comment: "You again have the same restrictions that I have. What if I loved the 7-year-old girl next door, or the married woman next door? I cannot marry just anyone I happen to love, and neither can you. Again, we have exactly the same restrictions."

So, tell us again, why you think you have a logical reason to redefine the basic family building block that has been used for centuries to pro-create the blood lines of the future?

And please be intellectually honest, and don't say..."I want the same rights as you have", and please don't say..."You get to marry the one you love, and I don't."

Please give us a more honest reason. Tell use the real reason...."I want to redefine marriage, because I have these unusual desires that I want to be recognized as normal."

That's the true reason. You want to be able to say..."I am married" whenever you are asked if you are. You don't want to say, "I have a partner" because it sets you apart from the norm. Otherwise there are contracts that you can enter into with your "partner" that will give you every "benifit" that married couples have, except for perhaps a few and those are government sactioned and reserved for those who under normal circumstances can pro-create.

Most people don't want the government to recognize and sanction "all partnerships" as being the same as "married partners" because it is obvious that they aren't.

That's why we have restrictions.



.

4 Comments:

At 9:49 PM, Blogger stc said...

The difference is a seven-year- old is not a person with standing in the American judicial system. If I, as an individual want the same standing as any other American, I should be able to form a civil union with whom ever I wish, so long as they also have standing. A seven-year-old does not. Nor does three party marriages. But American tax-paying citizens DO have rights. Marriage is a sacriment in the Christian church and as such the government should not have any say in how they decide who is worthy. The US government is supposted to be secular, and therefore should confer the same rights on all its citizens. Civil Union should be a right for any over 18 Americans. Full stop.

 
At 6:05 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

I have no problem with Civil Unions.

A Married woman has standing. But I cannot marry her.

The government is supposed to be "secular" by being neutral.

Therefore they should not saction a non-traditional marriage by changing the definition.

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger bhlogger said...

"Therefore they should not saction a non-traditional marriage by changing the definition."

If that's the way we looked at it, we'd still be outlawing interracial marriages.

 
At 1:27 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Bhlogger,

Again I am in favor of Civil Unions.

I am not in favor of changing the definition of "One man and One Woman" when it comes to Marriage as it relates to families.

Interracial marriages had nothing to do with changing the definition of one man, one woman. It had to do with race and bigotry.

I believe that it is of the utmost importance that children have both a mother and a father.

That they receive important biological lessons from each.

From a mother they learn compassion, and empathy.

From a father they learn logic and discipline.

Boys learn how to grow up to be Men from their fathers and girls learn how to grow up to be women from their mothers.

Not all are happy with that method, but 90% or so are.

The single most common trait with those in prison is they came from a fatherless home. It's like 80% or so, if my memory serves me.

There is a reason that the sexes are different, and I believe it has to do with the basic nuclear family unit was meant to be headed by a mother and a father.

I could be wrong, but I have to go with my brain, upbringing and my gut feelings on this one.

As I have said, it two consenting adults do something in private that doesn't break the law, or injure a third person, then who are we to say anything?

I agree with what stc said on this one..."Civil Union should be a right for any over 18 Americans."

Governments regulate and license.

Goverments don't confer rights, they impose restrictions.

Governments say who we cannot marry, not whom we can.

They say I cannot marry a married woman, or my sister, etc.

We may never agree on this one, but I respect your opinion because I have not walked a mile in your shoes.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home