Saturday, November 1, 2008

My Views on gay marriage

Gay marriage is a touchy subject for me. On one hand this is one of the few things I'm somewhat "liberal" about. Our fore fathers set up a system that yes, was to be founded on judeo-christian principles, but above all else was designed to be free. Abraham lincoln was a staunch supporter of the idea that you should be allowed to do anything you want so long as it doesn't hurt the community or another individual. I agree. When did it become the government's place to say who could or could not get married?

I kind of follow in the footsteps of Gov. Jesse Ventura in saying that regardless of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it's not the government's place to say who can and cannot be wed. It only seems logical that a couple who have devoted themselves to one another be allowed to receive all civil benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

On the other hand. Homosexuality, in many ways is seen as deviant. Liberals tend to follow Darwin's theory of evolution and prescribe to the notion that only the strong survive in nature. If Humans really did follow this line of thought, then homosexuality could never sustain itself. People would learn that homosexuality prevents reproduction and have no need for it. Although, along the same line of thought, it may prove that homosexuality is not a learned behavior but something coded into a person's DNA. Homosexuality wouldn't exist under darwinism if it were a learned behavior.

What I'm trying to say, is that I really have no idea what is right. Why promote a practice that could potentially be harmful to a community. If homosexuality is a learned behavior and allowed to continue to grow due to new civil freedoms, our ability to reproduce could be hampered, or our available DNA pool limited. I realize I'm looking at a gross view of the subject that may not play out for thousands of years, but I'm just throwing out "what ifs".

Untill someone can convince me otherwise, I agree with Gov. Ventura, once again. I say we should eliminate marriage as a civil union all together. If someone wants to be married and recognized as a couple through church, so be it, let the individual, private churches make those distinctions. We would then simply have civil unions for tax and legal purposes with no hint of the word marriage or definitions for those who can be in a civil union.

Anyone have an argument that might sway me? I'd love to hear people's (non-radical) thoughts on this. I'm a pretty open guy. I just don't know what to think about gay marriage.


Sonotek said...

This isn't a comment specifically about this post; just a general comment that I really like your blog. I didn't see an email address or I would've sent an email instead. Anyway, I came here from a comment you made on WhiteCoat. Once I started reading, I was captivated and read through all of 2008; now I'm up to Dec 2007. I also work the night shift at a hospital, am alone in my dept (ultrasound) and usually have plenty of time between patients to read blogs. Thanks for helping me stay awake; there were a lot of postings I could relate/respond to, but it would make this comment too long. Tomorrow night I'm going to work my way through 2007. Looking forward to more posts !

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying this rudely, but honestly you shouldn't have anything to think about gay marriage. Only gay people thinking about marrying eachother should be thinking about gay marriage. Heteros should not concern themselves with the personal affairs of gays, as we do not concern ourselves with yours. What we do concern ourselves with is a government that puts a stamp of approval on hetero relationships which allows benefits from partner healthcare decisions to tax exemptions, but does not allow them for gays. That is blatant theft of tax paying gay citizens that care just as much about eachother and their country as anyone else. I'm glad you are open minded, but I too am open minded about hetero marriage even though I do not believe the government should sanction marriage of any kind. I'd rather see the entire thing abolished, then watch one group showered with gifts from Big Brother, while another is shunned and made to suffer in the shadows.

rob rob the party slob said...


I respectfully disagree. I think I should have something to think about gay marriage. I believe you should never take away the rights of an individual based on greater good or popular opinion. but I also wonder if I want my little boy growing up in a culture where homosexuality is "normal". It's a deviant behavior wether it is learned or encoded into our genes. I'm not saying deviant in a derrogatory way, just a cultural and genetic way. Genetically, it's a deviance considering it eliminates the possiblity of reproduction which is so vital to communities. My opinion comes down to one thing. Regardless of my own opinions of homosexuality, I'm a strict constitutionalist, and dissallowing civil unions between same-sex couples is against the constitution, it's affording different rights or protections to one group of people while excluding another. I just don't like the idea of my son seeing same-sex marriage as something "normal".

Anonymous said...

rob rob, your genetic analysis is fundamentally flawed. if you think that every person whose genes deviate from the norm, then you must think that people with Down Syndrome or mental retardation are also deviants. I recall a time when those people too were cast aside and treated as if they were possessed by demons and subjected to tortures beyond imagination. And I'm sorry, but you cannot force your children into a sheltered environment and then expect them to grow up to be intelligent and well rounded adults. Most children raised behind a curtain usually end up underneath a sheet.