As background, last month a federal judge overruled a majority vote against legalizing gay marriage in Utah. And for about two weeks gay marriage in Utah was legal. Until just recently. The decision is on hold for a couple months due to appeals to have it reevaluated (this is my not so political language).
So today there was a rally at 5 for same-sex marriage and at 7 a rally against it. I've never been to one of these so I was a little nervous how it was going to be. I have been thinking a lot on the subject. Trying to understand the reasoning of both sides. And it's really been hard for me to find a political answer to what seems to me a religious question.
They had a few speakers and it was pretty good, but not as awe-inspiring as I had hoped it would be. I feel like on both sides the logic is flawed. Gays say they are not being treated equally ("equality now!" Was the chant of a few tonight who made a bit of a scene coming into the middle of the rally). But the fact is that it's not equality. Marriage IS between a man and a woman. We don't change the definition of something just bc you want to! A man loving a man does not constitute a marriage and should not be treated the same. I found the perfect word for it tonight. It's called "privelge." You get the privelges of marriage when you follow what IS marriage. Just like you get the privelge to have a masters degree after you've fulfilled the requirements. Or you get the privelge of driving a car after you have passed the driving test. Some may argue, well shouldn't everyone get to have a masters degree? And to this it would say everyone that wants to follow what a masters degree requires, yes! So they have an equal opportunity but not and equal right to a masters degree. Gays can't expect the rights of a marriage when they are not a marriage couple. Just like a couple living together. They may be of opposite sexes, but until they follow what is required, that is, commit to each other, than they can't have the privelge a of marriage either!
And on our side they argue that children need to have both parents present. That having a gay couple raise a child is going against all the fight to keep dads in the home. Although I do agree that we need both a mom and a dad to raise us. I think this is flawed in that a gay couple could argue that they would have two ppl raising the child rather than just one (like the many fatherless children). And so the child would still have the attention it needs.
They also argued that a child needs to know its biological mother and/or father. That in gay marriages they discourage the ceragate mother or sperm-donating father in being involved in the child's life.
The problem with this is that there are plenty of adopted children that don't know their parents and they don't suffer from it.
All in all, we left early but were still glad we were able to go and support marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Children cannot be born without a male and a female and they definitely need to have both in order to have a good upbringing. If we support gay marriage we are encouraging a really messed up society to come. And I think we are pushing over a domino on the "rights" that the gay community will continue to demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment