Marriage/Union/Whatever....
Okay, here goes.
The whole marriage/union/whatever debate will never be settled. One side sees it as this moral imperative and they are once again defining the terms (see the debate over fetus abortion).
Here is an argument to try with folks.
1. Economic: Any economist will tell you people in long term relationships are more steady economically and contribute over the long term more to the economy and allow it to grow. These long term relationships allow people to acquire property and invest. It allows them to increase their capital expenditures. Some of this is back to psychology in that we are seeking safety and security. When that happens, we can invest more. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will increase economic investment and planning. The homosexual community will have more people buying houses, setting up joint retirement funds; planning ahead and investing the economy rather than living day to day. This will mean that wealth will grow, generating more jobs and so and so forth. This accumulated wealth will be turned over to organizations or willed out at death further infusing the economy. Death and Property distribution is a big business and only gets bigger as our nation ages.
2. Legal: From the Nations standpoint, marriage acts as a legal contract between to 2 individuals to treat them as one person for many functions. It grants them the rights to handle property; financial assets and other elements a certain way. At the core root, the state wants society to allow people to build contracts that nurture the growth of the middle and upper classes. This reduces the chance of revolution. The French and Russian Revolutions were not accomplished by a content middle class that felt that had some buy in to the system. Allowing Homosexuals to enter into contracts in this manner adds them slowly to the middle class and further stabilizes society. They feel that they have an investment in the nation as a whole. When that happens, they broaden the range of support for the Commonwealth.
3. Religious: The religious objection is one that will never be overcome. The thing is that faith and religion are personal. Neither side is bad and yet neither side is good. The core here is that marriage is in many ways different from the legal or political aspects of it. While one feeds to the other, it does not mean that you cant have marriage without a religious basis. First off, which religious basis do you accept. Islamic, if I understand correctly, allows a man to have 4 wives. Aso does some branches of Mormonism allow multiple wives. Some primitive tribes allow multiple husbands. Other religions consider this bad. For many people, marriage is not about love or caring, but about property/breeding/money. If marriage was just to promote the growth of religious values, then no one should be allowed to marry outside their particular sect. Given that we allow marriage between different religions and allow those religions to define marriage in their eyes, there are religious groups that support and accept homosexual marriage. Thereby because you can find a religion to support it you should allow it. (This is the dumb argument I know, but it is an exercise increasing absurdism, which opponents use to say that if they allow homosexual marriage people will start marrying turtles or somesuch. Basically, their argument twisted back on them and played at high speed.)
Cultural: Our Declaration of Independence says that we have the right to pursue happiness. A person's ability to enter into contracts with who they want as long as it causes no measurable harm allows them to pursue happiness. The key here is that we are talking about consenting adults of legal age. They are not juveniles and they enter into the agreements freely and of their own free will. Second point, we state in our Pledge, we are for Liberty and Justice for all. How is declaring one segment of society to be less worthy of protection and nourishment to be Just. Now the retort to that is that we dont nourish pedophiles and such. See my above comment about consenting adults and free will.
Free Will: Oh now I have said it. This touches alot of areas. People have free will. From a Christian understanding, we can talk and encourage and show, but people have to make up their own mind. If we take the choice away, we are no better than those who persecuted Christ. From the legal side, Free Will allows us to do as we will as long as we dont damage anyone else. Your right to do as you will ends at my nose.
So basically, yes I am saying that the Commonwealth(State) should allow homosexual unions. There is no reason to deny it and over the long haul, it will benefit the state. Simply saying that the majority should rule on an issue is too simplistic. The majority thought Separate But Equal was fine, but now we know better. The majority often sees nothing wrong with genocide, because it is not them that is being killed. Someone said, that you judge a society by how it protects the rights of the minority not of the power of its majority. There are many people who feel drinking is terrible and should be prohibited. We saw how that ended and the path it blazed across the country. So now we exist in a society, where we say you can drink but only once you reach the age of consent (dont get me started on the draft and drinking argument). If you dont want to drink, you dont have to. If your faith prohibits it, you dont have to. Free Will.
The whole marriage/union/whatever debate will never be settled. One side sees it as this moral imperative and they are once again defining the terms (see the debate over fetus abortion).
Here is an argument to try with folks.
1. Economic: Any economist will tell you people in long term relationships are more steady economically and contribute over the long term more to the economy and allow it to grow. These long term relationships allow people to acquire property and invest. It allows them to increase their capital expenditures. Some of this is back to psychology in that we are seeking safety and security. When that happens, we can invest more. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will increase economic investment and planning. The homosexual community will have more people buying houses, setting up joint retirement funds; planning ahead and investing the economy rather than living day to day. This will mean that wealth will grow, generating more jobs and so and so forth. This accumulated wealth will be turned over to organizations or willed out at death further infusing the economy. Death and Property distribution is a big business and only gets bigger as our nation ages.
2. Legal: From the Nations standpoint, marriage acts as a legal contract between to 2 individuals to treat them as one person for many functions. It grants them the rights to handle property; financial assets and other elements a certain way. At the core root, the state wants society to allow people to build contracts that nurture the growth of the middle and upper classes. This reduces the chance of revolution. The French and Russian Revolutions were not accomplished by a content middle class that felt that had some buy in to the system. Allowing Homosexuals to enter into contracts in this manner adds them slowly to the middle class and further stabilizes society. They feel that they have an investment in the nation as a whole. When that happens, they broaden the range of support for the Commonwealth.
3. Religious: The religious objection is one that will never be overcome. The thing is that faith and religion are personal. Neither side is bad and yet neither side is good. The core here is that marriage is in many ways different from the legal or political aspects of it. While one feeds to the other, it does not mean that you cant have marriage without a religious basis. First off, which religious basis do you accept. Islamic, if I understand correctly, allows a man to have 4 wives. Aso does some branches of Mormonism allow multiple wives. Some primitive tribes allow multiple husbands. Other religions consider this bad. For many people, marriage is not about love or caring, but about property/breeding/money. If marriage was just to promote the growth of religious values, then no one should be allowed to marry outside their particular sect. Given that we allow marriage between different religions and allow those religions to define marriage in their eyes, there are religious groups that support and accept homosexual marriage. Thereby because you can find a religion to support it you should allow it. (This is the dumb argument I know, but it is an exercise increasing absurdism, which opponents use to say that if they allow homosexual marriage people will start marrying turtles or somesuch. Basically, their argument twisted back on them and played at high speed.)
Cultural: Our Declaration of Independence says that we have the right to pursue happiness. A person's ability to enter into contracts with who they want as long as it causes no measurable harm allows them to pursue happiness. The key here is that we are talking about consenting adults of legal age. They are not juveniles and they enter into the agreements freely and of their own free will. Second point, we state in our Pledge, we are for Liberty and Justice for all. How is declaring one segment of society to be less worthy of protection and nourishment to be Just. Now the retort to that is that we dont nourish pedophiles and such. See my above comment about consenting adults and free will.
Free Will: Oh now I have said it. This touches alot of areas. People have free will. From a Christian understanding, we can talk and encourage and show, but people have to make up their own mind. If we take the choice away, we are no better than those who persecuted Christ. From the legal side, Free Will allows us to do as we will as long as we dont damage anyone else. Your right to do as you will ends at my nose.
So basically, yes I am saying that the Commonwealth(State) should allow homosexual unions. There is no reason to deny it and over the long haul, it will benefit the state. Simply saying that the majority should rule on an issue is too simplistic. The majority thought Separate But Equal was fine, but now we know better. The majority often sees nothing wrong with genocide, because it is not them that is being killed. Someone said, that you judge a society by how it protects the rights of the minority not of the power of its majority. There are many people who feel drinking is terrible and should be prohibited. We saw how that ended and the path it blazed across the country. So now we exist in a society, where we say you can drink but only once you reach the age of consent (dont get me started on the draft and drinking argument). If you dont want to drink, you dont have to. If your faith prohibits it, you dont have to. Free Will.
posted by Sojourner at 12:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home