Why A Debate on Marriage?

How ironic is it that on this date (06/06/06) the Senate is debating whether or not an amendment is necessary for defining marriage between a man and a woman instead of some “other” arrangement? Everyone has their opinions, so I might as well throw mine out there.

The real fact is that homosexuality has been out there for a long time. It has been banned socially as being abnormal behavior, and quite frankly, it is. If the general population became homosexual, then the species (us) would become extinct within a very short time. While the proponents have stated that up to 10% of the population is homosexual, I have heard that the actual figure is much lower – like 2%. But why the recent push for acceptance, and now legality? In short, I believe it’s money.

The homosexual rights movement seemed to take off after AIDS became the number one disease of concern for the gay population. It became rapidly apparent that insurance companies (and employers) would not cover expensive treatment resulting from diseases that were linked to homosexual behavior. So how else can the costs of treatment be covered? Answer – make such behavior socially acceptable and legally permissible. And it is halfway there.

How many times during movies and TV shows is homosexual behavior shown to be “normal” or “natural?” Are you even aware of it now? Have you become desensitized to it? That’s the social component. If the normal population tolerates abnormal behavior, then the legal component has a much better chance of success.

The legal component is, at the moment, based on discrimination laws. Already, many companies (like mine) cover “life partners” whether such partners are of the same sex as the employee or not to avoid violating these laws. But there is still resistance from both social and legal sides.

So the answer is to make gay marriages legal. That way, there is no more problems for these partnerships to be acceptable – it becomes the law of the land. Health & retirement benefits would then be shared between partners.

Where do I stand on all of this? Marriage is, legally and morally, between a man and a woman. Do I hate homosexuals? No, I do not. I hate the sin, not the sinner. And people should not be discriminated against for whatever reason, no matter what their circumstance might be.

Advertisements

About Tom Roland

EE for 25 Years, Two Patents - now a certified PMP. Married twice, burned once. One son with Asperger's Syndrome. Two cats. Conservative leaning to the Right. NRA Life Member.
This entry was posted in Opinion, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why A Debate on Marriage?

  1. Tom says:

    This “hole” debate is about politics and a waste of time, but the issue is not. The issue is whether the “marriage” in the biblical sense is appropriate in a secular society – which I’m not sure if it is or has been: the big debate of the founding fathers – but governments always go awry when they try to legislate morality – except for the protection of individuals and minors – and they are doing it here.

    Given where we are socially, it’s unclear how far this will go.

    That having been said, now the equity part of the equation – vivre et laisser (faire) vivre.
    Joetheartist | Homepage | 06.06.06 – 8:20 pm | #

    Good post and I agree with what you have said. Although, I don’t associate the date with this issue. The suppposed “devil number” is not 060606, it’s 666. At any rate, I also agree this is a political issue but one I wish our country would adapt. The same way that I believe English should be our National language. I think this is just another example of liberals pushing their agenda on a nation that was founded on conservative values and conservative it should remain.
    Pamela | Homepage | 06.09.06 – 5:29 pm | #

    Sometimes it is impossible to love the sinner without hating the sin, and those that equate hating the sin with hating them are suffering from the “poor me” syndrome. I don’t believe you can love a gay person without being at least bothered by their orientation. To love that aspect of them is loving a malfunction.
    Shoprat | Homepage | 06.09.06 – 11:27 pm | #

    Good comments, everyone.

    Joe – Legislating morality is not part of the government, whether it is Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. What they should consider is what is in the public’s best interest, such as securing the country from our enemies. Of course, this is not the way the politicians see it since they have gotten used to meddling in the social issues of the day…

    Pamela – True, the date is not an exact “devil number,” but it was close enough for my purposes. Chalk it up to literary license. As to the rest of your comment, it would be nice that the country would continue the traditions that the Founding Fathers installed in this country, but they also allowed for the country to change (for better or worse). It is up to us to voice and vote our opinions and minds.

    Shoprat – While I have known people (and have a cousin) that are gay, it is truly difficult for me to overlook their orientation without being judgemental. Perhaps that is a weakness that we all have and need to work on.
    Tom | Homepage | 06.10.06 – 3:31 pm | #

    Well said, Tom.
    I bear the gay community no ill wiil
    But marriage is between a man and a woman.

    And I always thought that 10% figure was BS. I’m not even sure about 2%…
    jimmyb | Homepage | 06.12.06 – 5:19 am | #

    Tom, you are right, I just don’t like a lot of the changes that I’m seeing. I agree that it’s folks like us who need to get our voices out there! The blogosphere is getting more and more recognition and we need to keep it up! Keep up your great posts!
    Pamela | Homepage | 06.12.06 – 5:45 pm | #

Comments are closed.