Saturday, July 9, 2011

Gay Marriage, Part One

With the recent decision in New York, the issue of gay marriage is once again in people’s minds (or was).  Personally, I am sick of this discussion, as I am sure many others are.  However, I will write a post containing my argument against gay marriage so I can simply refer to it rather than needing to explain it again. 

Throughout Western civilization, going back to Ancient Greece, marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman.  This is logical, seeing as how marriage was initially established as a means to perpetuate the species.  Being a conservative, I am opposed to change when I do not think it is necessary.  In this case, I do not believe that it is necessary because, as far as I can tell, all of the benefits of marriage can be achieved through other means (civil unions, for example).  In addition, I respect that people have deep religious convictions, and therefore, it seems disrespectful to me to alter the definition of this well-established institution, that they hold in such high regard, for the sake of political correctness.  For these reasons, I will say that it is up to the proponents of gay marriage to make the case for their cause.  They have the responsibility to convince people that gay marriage should be recognized by the government. 

I have much more to say on this issue, and I will say more later.  

2 comments:

  1. You say:

    it seems disrespectful to me to alter the definition of this well-established institution, that they hold in such high regard, for the sake of political correctness.

    Is it all for the sake of political correctness? Surely there are some gay couples for whom it means more? It's very hard for me to figure this out, since I'm single and straight, and some gay couples I know have chosen to marry and some have not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is what it seems like to me. If I am presented with some evidence that it is actually more than that, then maybe I would reconsider my position. So far, I have not seen any such evidence. And, perhaps marriage does mean more for some gay couples. But the institution of marriage also means a lot to some people.

    It is up to the proponents of change to make the case for said change. At least that is how I see it. Talking points about equal rights do not suffice, since gays already have equal rights (at least, equal fundamental rights).

    As for the legal aspect of marriage, some alternative, such as civil unions, would suffice (assuming that civil unions are legally equal to marriage). If gay couples want to call their union marriage, then why can't the just do that? Why do they need the government to recognize that their union is marriage?

    ReplyDelete

I will not tolerate irrelevant or inappropriate comments. Any such comments will be deleted. Please do not use sexually explicit language.