I support same-sex marriage but probably for far less personal reasons than other people. Taking a very Vulcan viewpoint, I am for same-sex marriage not because I am emotionally invested in the issue but because I think that it is only logical.
Since I base my opinion off of what I feel is most logical, I am discounting all religious points of view as I feel that religion is not only illogical but also a complete fallacy that is used to promote control of the masses rather than any sort of holy salvation.
America is supposed to be a land of opportunity that prides itself on freedom and equality regardless of race, creed, religion, and even sexuality. Sure, it can be argued that America was founded on Christian values and that such values denounce homosexuality as ‘going against God’ but separation of church and state helps to prevent religion as being a plausible reason why same-sex marriage should be outlawed in the United States.
I am aware that the exact phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not mentioned in the Constitution but regardless of how you choose to interpret it; there is a reason why our government is a government of the people and not of the church. For religion to be a viable form of government, I feel God Himself would have to come down and put Himself up for election the same way I would not accept the idea of one man running for President only for another to actually take the seat.
I believe Jefferson said it best: “Religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship.”
The government has no right to force any church to recognize any marriage that goes against their belief just like no church has the right to tell the government that two people of the same gender do not have the right to get married. While admittedly not a fan of religion, this also goes along with the idea that I believe it was wrong for the government to force the Catholic Church’s insurance to cover contraception.
When you get right down to it, this should be a legal matter more than anything. My brother-in-law is very much against gay marriage, as a Christian and as an American and even when he put his Christian ethics aside; he said that marriage was matrimony between men and women that should be respected as such by the U.S. Government. Despite not feeling like he was able to truly put his beliefs as a Christian on hold, I still find such reasoning to be laughable.
I feel like it is clear that the U.S. Government has little respect for marriage and that on their terms, it is little more than a legal contract rather than any sort of union of love. In a country where you can literally get married in a drive-thru, could you really be surprised that the government does not care about the ‘sanctity of matrimony’?
Personally, I have no interest in ever getting married. I honestly feel that it has the potential for more legal trouble than it is worth. I am more than willing to remain in a monogamous relationship with a woman and raise a family with her without the need to put our love in to paperwork. That does not mean that I will never get married, though because if the woman that I fall in love with desires marriage, then I will do everything within my ability to give her, her ‘dream wedding’.
WakaWaka wrote:I truly do, but in this case, voting yay or nay would be a betrayal of someone. Deep down, I simply do not care. If I vote yay, I hurt those that want nay. If I vote nay, I hurt those that desire yay. If I had deeper feelings on this subject then it would not matter as I would belong to one of the parties, but in this case, I do not, and so, I will not simply check yay or nay simply because I should do something.
Don’t worry. I’m not going to be one of those people who try to push you to have an opinion concerning one side or the other. In fact, I support your neutral stance and I am not going to throw down the old adage of the greatest evil being when good men do nothing because I see no evil in neutrality concerning same-sex marriage. In fact, I do not even see evil in someone opposing same-sex marriage. I may view it as an injustice that infringes on certain peoples’ rights but I would not say it was evil.
However, I bring up your quote because I am curious as to why your own opinion on another matter would actually hurt a friend who holds an opposite opinion. This could lead one to believe that you never discuss differing opinions with your friends out of fear of offending them and thus your discussions with them must always remain either lighthearted or cover a subject that you both wholly agree on. Holding to a belief and acting as an advocate for that belief should not be viewed as a betrayal of those friends who do not share that belief. And in my opinion, of that friend would claim betrayal on your part because of that then they are a poor friend, indeed.
I am for same-sex marriage and yet my friends and family who do not share my opinion are not offended or upset with me because we all respect that each of us hold different beliefs and that we may not always agree on certain matters.
Now I am certainly not trying to insinuate that you hold no opinion on this and that you abstain from casting a vote should the issue ever make it to your ballot simply because you do not wish to offend your friends. Judging from your comment, I truly believe that you do not hold an opinion because, as you said, deep down, you simply do not care and I can respect that. If we were discussing stealing food from children then I might have a stronger stance against your neutrality but, much like your stance on same-sex marriage, I simply do not care about your neutrality.
cucumbersome wrote:Consent is all that matters, and it should be verified with extra care before performing a more unusual type of wedding.
I have to disagree. Consent is not all that matters, especially when it comes to such matters as marriage. Just because it is not hurting the people around them, a mother and a son having a child of their own can be very detrimental to the child as such a close relation makes it very likely that said child is going to be born mentally and/or physically deficient. While it may not be the reason why incestuous relationships are illegal, it is a good reason for them to remain that way.
I only quoted a small part of what you said, though so I feel it necessary to make it clear to anyone reading just this comment that cucumbersome did not ever insinuate if he/she was for something such as incestuous relationships or marriage. I was simply bringing it up because it was brought up in previous comments and also to use as an example as to why I disagree that consent is all that matters.
So does anyone have a reason for being against same-sex marriage that does not have to do with religion or personal morals? That is a point I’d like to see made.