Some Thoughts On Gay Marriage and Rights

Recently, a friend posted something on Facebook, which she prefaced by saying that she expected to lose friends on both ends of the political spectrum over what was to come.  Sadly, I suspect that she might, though those of us responding early clearly were supportive of her position.  That said, I expect I may lose readers and others by what I have to say on the subject.  I also expect I may gain some too.

I am not going to get into the origins of marriage and all that comes into and from it.  That is a complex topic and frankly would distract from the points I want to make today.  This touches on my religious/spirtual beliefs, my political beliefs, and my basic humanity.  In the process of discussion, I’m probably going to outrage just about every part of the socio-political spectrum, and that is to the good if it generates some thought and discussion.

I support gay marriage, and gay rights.

Simple, straightforward, and concise.  Now, here’s were it gets messy.

First, I don’t think government should be in the marriage business.  Governments are involved for two basic reasons:  defending the faith/status quo, and getting the money as they ensure an orderly transfer of wealth.

Defending the faith/status quo comes from history, and from the fact that most governments do represent some form of faith, be it Muslim, Christian, Shinto, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist, or other faith.  The supermajority of faiths ban male homosexuality strongly, are down on but not quite as hard on female homosexuality, and also pretty much down on anything that doesn’t grow the population.  The short version for all such is that if it doesn’t produce (male, particularly) babies, then don’t do it.  It has to do with survival of the species, and in particular the given clan/sect/race in question.  This is a topic for many posts another day, but accept it now as a given condition of my posit (position).

Getting the money while ensuring an orderly transfer of wealth goes back into the mists of time.  The idea(l) that everyone should get something from an estate is a relatively new one in most Western societies (and several others).  In many cultures, the tradition has been that all went to the eldest son.  While that was not universal, it was at least the operation in breach if not in law.  Ensuring that passing what was gained in one generation to the next did not result in fighting, deaths, and other weakening of the clan/village/other became a function of government in order to protect the greater good.  The fact that politicians quickly realized that it gave them an excellent opportunity to skim a bit of that aided in the growth of same no doubt.

Leaving aside the continuation of the species for now, both of the above reasons are excellent examples of why government should not be involved.  First, it gives government the right to intrude into the religious conduct of its subjects/citizens, which should be an anathema to any free person.  Who is the government to tell me what to believe, how to believe, and how I should worship and when?  Second, in a free society, why should access to all accounts and property be given to anyone other than the family?  To do so is to grant more power and size to the government, and as such grows tyranny.

Second, I do support gay rights.  No one should have to hide who they are.  Over the years, I’ve seen friends struggle to cope with admitting to themselves and others that they were gay.  It has often been heartbreaking to see the reaction of family and friends; and, I’ve seen some amazing support for and from same.  Life, and sexuality, are difficult enough without making it more so.

However, I do have problems with anyone who puts their orientation first in life.  If that is who you are, then you are not much at all.  If that is all there is to you, you are shallow, callow, vain, and depressingly ignorant.  You are a self-centered uneducated boor and a detriment to society and the cause you espouse.

I have no problem with a soldier, fireman, doctor or other being gay.  I do have strong objection to anyone who is a gay-whatever as those who do are showing that the whatever is dead last in life for them.  The whatever is usually done in a “whatever” fashion to the detriment of anyone who depends on them for that whatever.

The religious/spiritual aspects I will address another day.  Suffice it to say for now that my support for gay rights in no way impacts my particular religious/spiritual beliefs.  I will lay my case out later for those who are interested.  Short version is that my deity does not set people up for failure and damnation.

Third, I support gay marriage/unions just as I support all unions from those who want to enter into them.  My own experiences have left me a bit cynical (a topic for another day), but I also have seen couples so truly in love with each other that it could melt a heart of stone.

Any who truly do feel that way should be able to be together, be a couple, and live their lives in that bliss.  I envy such couples to an extent, and not only wish them well but am glad we have their examples for us.  Though, I am smiling right now thinking of a quote my parent’s loved, about if such a couple asked if they had ever thought of divorce:  the answer was divorce, never; murder, frequently.
For those relationships that don’t pass the test of time, they should be subject to the same rules and regulations on dissolution as any other marriage done that way, or in that faith.  No more, no less.  Most laws relating to such have to do with property and wealth, the redistribution of same, and the cut the government gets.  While we are at it, a good long look at such might not be a bad idea…

So there you have it.  The short version of my thoughts on gay marriage and gay rights.  Think of it what you will, but understand that while I encourage discourse I will not tolerate simple bigotry and ignorance.  On that, be warned.  Otherwise, have at and accept that some portions of the topic will require many posts to explore my reasoning and beliefs, and that such will not happen immediately no matter what you demand.

Addendum:  As a corollary to this, I would also state that the government, nor any other group, has the right to force any religion to accept, endorse, or perform any ceremony or act contrary to their beliefs.  Attempts to do so are contrary to the claim of freedom being espoused; and, ultimately futile and guaranteed to generate horrendous backlash.  To all, accept that others will not always accept your belief, and live with it.  You can try persuasion all you like, but force on any level should never be tolerated by any free person, and met with all necessary force in return.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 2 = four

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>