Comments on: Politics and Marriage

By: David

David — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:02:09 +0000

This is an example of how the full protection of individual rights would render this portion of the debate (how to get equal rights for those who are not in a marriage relationship) irrelevant. If individual rights were protected fully there would be no need to write a law about who a person could share ownership of property with, or custody of children. A person could easily give power to anyone they chose to make health decisions or funeral arrangements.

The real argument about bills like this is that opponents see civil unions as an attack on marriage while proponents either won’t or can’t admit the truth which is that legalizing homosexual relationships with civil unions could be used as a stepping stone to forcing people to recognize homosexual relationships as being on equal footing as heterosexual marriages.

The editorial argues falsely that “Despite the obvious religious objections, this bill is about equality under the law.” The truth is that what this bill is about would be decided after it is passed. As proof look at the First Amendment – when it was passed it was about ensuring that government would not promote one religion over another; two hundred years later it is being used to stifle any religious expression in a public setting.

I found it interesting that it is only since 1977 that married couples have formally enjoyed the legal standing that this bill would grant to homosexual partners now. What should be happening is that these rights should be informal like they were before 1977 and should be applied equally. This would leave the gay marriage question as a theological issue where it belongs. Each church would have the right/responsibility to decide what constitutes marriage according to their doctrine.

It is only since the government started trying to tinker with society by promoting whatever it determined to be good that people felt the need to start boxing in their rights (or boxing out those who didn’t fit their ideal).

By: Melissa

Melissa — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:13:02 +0000

I would be interested in your comments about the following opinion column: http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/29/Editorials/Civil.Union.Bill.An.Opportunity.For.Illinois-2811133.shtml

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:02:22 +0000

How can you say that fornication has a victim any more than a homosexual love relationship? Adultery obviously guarantees that there is a victim, but the definition of fornication stipulates only that the situation be consensual and between unmarried individuals. There is no exclusion for “victimless” relationships.

“Man shall not lie with man PERIOD” would indicate that it is sin for my infant son to fall asleep on my chest – would you lump that in the same category as a homosexual relationship? That argument just doesn’t wash.

By: Fred Conwell

Fred Conwell — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:34:06 +0000

Note that Jesus still defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who is the victim being sinned agains? No Gospel writer nor prophet covers homosexuality because it is not the issue. The King James Version comes closest to a correct English translation with “sexual immorality” which is not homosexuality. (Remember that “homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any translation using a form of that word is a lie that needs to be ammended.) If God didn’t want men (or women?) to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD That whole “…as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman.

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:25:10 +0000

It’s interesting to imagine the consternation of those who favor big government and oppose same-sex marriage if they were to recognize how large government helps to subtly advance the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.

By: Jesse Harris

Jesse Harris — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:22:16 +0000

What a great set of ideas. It underscores just how deeply government has inserted itself into our lives once; all it takes is a quick enumeration of how government has usurped what was once the domain on the individual. Once we remove all of those incentives, we end up reducing the same-sex marriage debate to one of societal recognition, the true crux of the entire argument.

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:21:38 +0000

I had never considered the possibility of heterosexual couples making use of a “civil union” type of legal arrangement. I guess it’s the inverse of a common-law marriage – it’s not marriage, but it is legally recognized. (I know, common law marriages are legally recognized in some places.)

By: Jason D'Avignon

Jason D'Avignon — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:29:04 +0000

It’s a breath of fresh air to read something on this subject that is clear and rational.

An interesting thing that relates to this is that in France they instituted a sort of “civil union” and it has been used quite often by heterosexual couples who did not want to be married but had a relationship that required more than the standard boyfriend/girlfriend set up in terms of rights and responsibilities.

This just goes to show, I think, that once we begin looking at this rationally we’ll come to solutions that benefit the society as a whole.