On Gay Rights and Gay Marriage
The blogosphere is rife with discussion on gay marriage and the LDS Church's involvement in California. I would like to do my part in the battle for family. I pray this post will have positive effect in that battle, however modest it might be.
First of all, I've already said how I feel about group rights. Gays don't have rights. Human beings have rights. Gays happen to be human beings. Good, we're on the same page.
That said, this isn't really about gay rights as much as it is about gay marriage, but it brings me to my first point.
Marriage is not a right.
For all the talk about gay rights you can mostly chalk it up to human rights that need to transcend prejudice. In other words, instead of clamoring for "gay rights" they should instead be insisting that they be afforded the already existing human rights. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a prime example of a group inventing new rights so they can feel the same as everyone else regardless of their decisions. It's like a people with dreadlocks inventing a right to lay their heads on your table simply because you don't mind another person without dreadlocks doing it.
Marriage is fundamental to society.
This is entirely incident to marriage not being a right, but is yet a powerful argument against the thought that marriage should be a right. Marriage is the very institution by which children have parents, both mother and father. It is the core of the fundamental unit of society—family.
Marriage involves more than the couple.
Intimate relations are not just about consenting adults having a good time. There is ever present the possibility of new life. This new life has rights just the same. It has needs, physical, emotional, spiritual.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God [etc.]
Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
—The Family: A Proclamation to the World
It is because of this sticky situation that marriage is instituted. The very purpose of marriage is to give children stable homes, to assure where possible that when children are created they have a mother and a father. Once you realize this, you realize that gay marriage isn't the only thing you ought to be worried about. Fornication, adultery and divorce come to mind. Alas, this post is about gay marriage. Indeed, homosexual relations cannot result in offspring, so the very reasons for instituting marriage don't even apply to the deviants. Yet they insist they have a right to marry. Again I propose it's merely about them feeling the same as everyone else, regardless of their personal choices. It's validation, nothing more.
Government should be involved in marriage.
Many of my libertarian friends throw around the idea that government should step out of marriage completely, leaving it a private and religious matter concerning only those involved. This is one of few places where I diverge from the libertarian camp (though not necessarily libertarian ideals). As stated previously, marriage inherently involves more than the parties involved. It involves family and new life; it involves society as a whole. It is in the interests of everyone involved (and everyone is involved, who among us was not born of a mother and a father?) and we should take every opportunity to encourage marriage over promiscuity and counseling over divorce. We should take every opportunity to afford children the privilege of being born into the marriage relation, and where that's not possible to be adopted into such (no, I'm not saying single parents should give up their children, though they shouldn't be discouraged to do so). The government is the vehicle by which the people are governed. Whereas the people deem it in society's interest to afford children the opportunity to develop under the guidance of bonded mother and father, encouraged to stay together, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, thus is born the state sanctioned institution of marriage.
Here are several links that were very helpful in gathering my thoughts and formulating my arguments.\n\nhttp://www.millennialstar.org/2008/05/16/supporting-the-churchs-position-on-same-sex-marriage/\n\nhttp://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SenateSept42003.pdf\n\nhttp://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/california-saints-to-get-the-call/\n
03 Jul 21:03 by
And this has what to do with open source? (came across this on the ‘Utah Open Source Planet’)
05 Jul 12:10 by
You’ll see by my tag cloud that I do blog a lot about programming and computers, and I am a proud supporter of open source. I do blog about other things. If it’s that offensive I can give the planet a feed of specific tags only.
06 Jul 11:28 by
Not offensive, but certainly off topic, so yes, a specific tag feed would be appreciated.
06 Jul 15:33 by
Mark must be new to the Utah Open Source Planet. It’s a collection of blogs by people involved in or passionate about open source. There is no obligation to keep posts “on topic”.
08 Jul 11:29 by
Nice post “B. Hammock” :) he he…
06 Aug 12:54 by
Post a comment
Website and email are optional. Email will be displayeduser at example dot com.