Anyone who has read this blog knows that I am gay and that's okay - with me, of course. Admittedly, I really don't care what anyone else thinks about it solely for the fact that I have to live this life, not you or anyone else for that matter. You can read about that if you click here. So, as the title suggests, this particular post goes on about marriage.
Heterosexual marriage, Opposite marriage, Homosexual marriage, Same-Sex marriage - do we really need all these names for marriage? Can't we just say that Ouiser is married and let it go? Why do we have the need to verify, to all who can hear, what marriage that person is involved in?
Now I like to read a blog from Canada and while I rarely comment on it because most of the people have already said what I would have said. You can read her blog here, specifically her take on gay marriage and how (I could be wrong) it appears all industrialized nations laugh at us for being so stupid to inflict and allow harm to others due to our limited - yet personal - views on religion.
Two of the biggest arguments about gay marriage is that it's forbidden in the Bible and it'll ruin the sanctity of marriage. For the first one, your religious preferences have no place in our government. As a secular government, it must remain neutral to religion or the lack thereof. For you see, both are personal choices made by you. While one can argue that you were called to that religion or one could argue that there is no proof to support religion, it doesn't matter. Neither one belongs in government. The government is a necessary evil meant to protect us all from harm not only a select few. I find it interesting that we tiptoe around religion like it's a sacred artifact. Perhaps to you, it's sacred, but when you throw you and your religion out on the political stage, expect to be ridiculed. You can't say your peace and then expect the rest of us not to say anything at all. That would be like a girl hitting a boy and then saying, "I'm a girl and you can't hit me." but she put herself in a man's place; therefore, she accepts all that is coming.
For the second, and I've asked this question before, what are you saving marriage from? Surely, it's not the 50% divorce rate. Then again, if you allowed gays to be married, you would be adding more to the pool so the divorce rate would, in theory, go down but that is a probability problem for another day.
Procreation? No, that can't be it. After all, we allow single parents to have kids and adopt kids. We certainly don't terminate a parent's right to their children because they divorce. We also don't require you to sign a legal contract to have children, if you want to be married.
Because children need a mother and a father? No, that's not right either. For the same reasons listed above. What if that mother never dates again or remarries - she raises them on her own and that's quite hard but she still keeps her children.
It'll cause divorce when people turn gay? Not really but it wouldn't surprise me if a few people left their spouses to pursue their feelings they never acted on earlier. Even if you could point to that, the numbers won't be high enough to make a big deal out of it. Furthermore, that person didn't actually turn gay. They were gay their entire lives and are just now acting out on it.
Churches will be forced to marry people they don't like? No, we all know that isn't the case. Churches will turn down people to marry them solely for not being a member or because they don't want too. Nothing about this will change regardless of what others might lead you to believe.
Marriage is a religious institution? Technically, yes. Marriage has been a religious institution but government has its claws in it. So, if you want to say that it's a religious institution then government must revoke any and all tax benefits associated with the union. All those little extras some of you get in refunds or tax savings every year would simply go away. After all, government must remain neutral to all forms of religion or non-religion. But if you call it a government institution, then everyone should be included because again, government is meant to protect us all not just a few. This means the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would have to go away. You can't have it both ways. Remember that DOMA was created to make the religious right feel better about themselves - not to mention sleep better at night knowing those pesky gays can't be like them. I believe it was required to be passed in order to avoid holding up other legislation.
I don't understand all that goes on with religion and why people believe the rest of us should be inflicted with their personal choice. It reminds me of something I heard and can't quite remember where or perhaps I made it up for the giggles.....who knows? The speaker wanted to know why does every one else have to suffer with their obvious bad taste and lack of maturity. While religious choice isn't in bad taste or lack of maturity, I can make an argument for both. There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule but sadly those are exceptions not the norm.
So, in the end, it has to be one way or the other. You either keep it as a religious institution and lose some benefits that the government gives for being married or you release that notion and allow all others to join the union. I suppose that it could stay the way it is now and I certainly hope you'll feel better about yourself in the end.
If you think that there's nothing wrong with the status quo then perhaps you should do one of the following (your choice, pick one):
1. Spend time with a gay person at the deathbed of their dying partner. Ask them what is going to happen to them when their partner dies. Actually listen to their answer.
2. Watch as a gay person is rejected while attempting to spend time with their partner. The hospital says that only family is allowed to be in the room. Since you aren't married, you can't go in.
3. Ask this same gay person what they are feeling as they read the note from their partner's family attorney telling them that they cannot attend their partner's funeral because that family doesn't want them there. That their partner's family denies them access to their home because, they aren't married, so everything in the partner's home (including the home) goes to next of kin. Find out what it's like to be kicked to the curb because your partner's family never liked you because they felt you are the reason he/she was gay to begin with.
4. Find out what it was like for them to be told by their partner that he/she was invited to a family get together but only if they left their partner at home. He/She wasn't invited. Find out the pain inflicted on your partner because, while he/she wants to spend time with family, he/she refused to leave you home alone.
The simple words of "I do." mean everything to those who can't get married. This, one of the shortest sentence in the world, could make all the difference to the person mentioned above.
Realize that every second in this life is precious and that everyone deserves the right to make every second count. Take time to think about what really makes you happy and realize that happiness is one of life's fleeting ideas that most people can't hold on too. It really pains me to see that there are people in this world who take absolute joy and glee out of making another person's life miserable.
For these reasons and more, I reject organized religion. I never want to feel like that again.
Signed,
Ouiser
No comments:
Post a Comment