I have posted several articles on the gay marriage debate that is currently raging in California and American politics. Through the discussions, I have learned several things and want to ask a few questions and make a few observations:
- Why is Christianity seemingly the only religion that is under attack? I realize that Christianity is probably the largest religious voting group in the U.S., but gay marriage is not accepted by the majority within any major religion in the U.S. Have other religious groups received the same response?
- There are Christians who support gay marriage, so to lump all Christians into the same basket is stereotyping. Many Christians support gay marriage based upon their religious convictions. Why is it OK to support gay marriage based upon religious conviction, but wrong to oppose it based upon the same type of conviction?
- There are a large number of non-religious people who are opposed to same-sex marriage. This is not just a “religious” thing.
- Why is it OK for gay-rights activists to appeal to their “Creator” (i.e. God) as their source of authority, but wrong for Christians to appeal to their God? Not sure what I mean by this? Gay rights activists say that Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, is a violation of their basic, inalienable rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the United States. The Bill of Rights states that people have inalienable rights bestowed on them by their Creator (i.e. God). It is not necessary to define who “God” is in this statement, but to recognize it as an appeal to a higher Authority (i.e. God) as the source of our basic human rights. This means that these rights cannot be taken away by any source, whether it be the President, king, government, or the will of the people. When gay-rights activists appeal to their inalienable rights, they appeal to the authority of their “Creator” (again, they can choose who their god is). To deny that there is a Creator is to deny that there are basic, inalienable rights and invalidates any argument based upon inalienable rights. Why is the authority of the god of gay-rights activists allowed to enter the discussion, while it is inappropriate to allow Christians to appeal to their God as their source of authority? This seems like a double standard to me.
- Is marriage primarily a religious institution or a civil one? Marriage seems to have originated within religion and then was “recognized” by the State. If it is primarily a religious institution, does the State have any right to redefine it? Is this not a violation of Separation of Church and State? It would make more sense to argue for civil unions recognized by the State that are equal (in a legal sense) to marriage rather than trying to impose a new meaning onto the religious institution of marriage, which the Christian Church and other religions can never accept based upon their convictions.
These are some of my observations. I look forward to hearing what you think.
I know a lot of people who are against gay marriage, but have no problem with civil unions giving gay couples the same rights as a married couple. That’s where I stand. I think that a ban on gay marriage is not necessarily an attempt to limit the rights of a gay couple, but to maintain the sanctity of marriage. If people would work towards the rights of the couple without calling in “marriage,” they would probably be much more successful.
I really like the way you stated this. Nice! Their appeal to a higher authority is only OK for their own misguided interests disregarding the longstanding rights of others who see the need to maintain the high ideals of right design.
The idea that these homosexuals have all along been free to form legally binding contracts upon one another is really not what they’re interested in at all.
When it really makes sense to bewail separation of Church and State they are hoping no one will notice that they not only misuse the definition and design of marriage but they misuse the definer and designer.
The god of the “gay”-rights activist exists only in their cries for extreme selfishness.