Acceptance
Hi Everybody, I know this site is mostly pics and commentaries of what we've been up to for the benefit of our family and friends but now that I know that there are lots of people looking at our blog I want to take the opportunity to touch on a subject that is very important to both Scott and I. I'm talking about acceptance and tolerance, specifically of same-sex marriage.
In a recent discussion the subject of Sir Elton John's marriage to David Furnish came up. A lady who has been very nice to us blurted out something about her opinion being that they were not really married at all. I thought that being against equal rights was something people kept to themselves these days! Both Scott and I managed to keep our mouths shut out of respect for the host and hostess, especially since these are people we hardly know and have to work with but it was really hard I tell you and now, looking back, I feel bad that I didn't say something.
People have to know that promoting hate is no longer acceptable in our society. The folks we were talking with were all church going people(aren't you supposed to love thy neighbour?)! And we aren't! God shouldn't have anything to do with it, regardless. Somewhere along the lines the people decided that church and state should be kept separate, and rightly they should! Besides, it's utterly ridiculous to think that marriage is specifically a Christian union. Marriage, if not by that specific title, has been around much longer than Christianity and currently takes place in many societies that are not predominantly Christian. One day I hope to marry Scott, and when (and if) that happens we will not stand before God and yet the end result will still be recognized by our government as marriage.
I have a new idea for a kind of all around, general rule/law that we should all abide by: Thou shalt do anything thy wants so long as it DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE! Promoting hate does hurt. It was not that long ago in history when it was acceptable to look upon a person of another race as being less of a person-we've moved away from that, haven't we? What is different about denying a person basic rights like marriage and benefits because the person they love happens to be of the same sex? What about equality and freedom? Are only those of us who are white and straight entitled to those basic rights? That's unreasonable and as far as I'm concerned-if you think this way then you are an ignorant hick who should yourself be denied of these rights so that you can understand how it feels.
For the record: we are very lucky to have family and friends who are good people and are both accepting and tolerant-this rant is not aimed at you guys! It just breaks my heart that a person should be punished in any way just because they fell in love. People should be judged by their deeds not their sexual preference. Get over it. And if you agree with me please do not vote Conservative on the Jan 23 election. That is not the kind of country we want to live in!
In a recent discussion the subject of Sir Elton John's marriage to David Furnish came up. A lady who has been very nice to us blurted out something about her opinion being that they were not really married at all. I thought that being against equal rights was something people kept to themselves these days! Both Scott and I managed to keep our mouths shut out of respect for the host and hostess, especially since these are people we hardly know and have to work with but it was really hard I tell you and now, looking back, I feel bad that I didn't say something.
People have to know that promoting hate is no longer acceptable in our society. The folks we were talking with were all church going people(aren't you supposed to love thy neighbour?)! And we aren't! God shouldn't have anything to do with it, regardless. Somewhere along the lines the people decided that church and state should be kept separate, and rightly they should! Besides, it's utterly ridiculous to think that marriage is specifically a Christian union. Marriage, if not by that specific title, has been around much longer than Christianity and currently takes place in many societies that are not predominantly Christian. One day I hope to marry Scott, and when (and if) that happens we will not stand before God and yet the end result will still be recognized by our government as marriage.
I have a new idea for a kind of all around, general rule/law that we should all abide by: Thou shalt do anything thy wants so long as it DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE! Promoting hate does hurt. It was not that long ago in history when it was acceptable to look upon a person of another race as being less of a person-we've moved away from that, haven't we? What is different about denying a person basic rights like marriage and benefits because the person they love happens to be of the same sex? What about equality and freedom? Are only those of us who are white and straight entitled to those basic rights? That's unreasonable and as far as I'm concerned-if you think this way then you are an ignorant hick who should yourself be denied of these rights so that you can understand how it feels.
For the record: we are very lucky to have family and friends who are good people and are both accepting and tolerant-this rant is not aimed at you guys! It just breaks my heart that a person should be punished in any way just because they fell in love. People should be judged by their deeds not their sexual preference. Get over it. And if you agree with me please do not vote Conservative on the Jan 23 election. That is not the kind of country we want to live in!
p.s. If you want to hear more on this sensitive subject read the comments, I have a feeling it's going to get very interesting:)
posted by Scott at 10:15 AM
4 Comments:
Dear Lynne,
I read your post with great interest. Though I disagree with you I hope to respond in an agreeable manner.
You said: Marriage, if not by that specific title, has been around much longer than Christianity
This is true. Christianity started approximately 2,000 years ago. The first reference in the Christian Bible happens in the Old Testament book, Genesis 2:24, and it was applied to Adam and Eve. Christians being the current defenders of God’s Word rightly assert that it is a Godly institution between a man and a woman.
Obviously if you do not believe in God as you stated above, you would have to rely purely on historical evidence of its occurrence. The Christian model goes back 6,000 years. Let the evidence you have contrary to that guide you.
As you know words definitions change over time. The word gay today obviously is not used in its original context. However, at any point in time words have meaning. Since inception marriage has meant the holy union between one man and one woman. “Holy” is a word that means set apart. It differentiates between casual relationships and those where there is a form of ownership, ie. Scott has rights to your love, devotion, faithfulness, etc. Obviously there are responsibilities of providing for, honoring, etc.
The word marriage must be definable to describe something while also not describing something else. You must decide where you want that definition to be. If you include same sex unions, do you also include multiple partners? If so why? If not why? What about incestuous unions between siblings, parent to child, or other minors? Do these qualify for the definition of marriage? How about to animals? In certain European countries bestiality is legal.
Were marriage just some lovey-dove googoo-eyed act of adoration like wearing your boyfriends class ring, then perhaps perverting 6,000 years of strict definition of what it actually means would not be of much consequence. However, laws both for tax reporting, insurance contracts, and many other facets of society have been created with a very strict definition of marriage. Were we to include same sex unions, then we have lost that tie to its origin in Biblical history and there is no anchor left to withhold any definition, no matter how outrageous, from being applied to the word. And redefining it would mean real effects already solidified in old law having to be revisited either by legislature or court cases to correct the applications of these old laws to the “new” marriage.
No doubt this will seem “intolerant” and “hateful” to you. I am for a free society that allows adults to cohabit outside of marriage. But demanding that words have meaning, retain meaning, and not changing meaning with good cause is hardly promoting “hate.”
As a Christian I hope that all people would act decent: don’t steal, don’t envy, etc. In addition to that would be respect the God ordained institution of marriage. To play loose with its definition does nothing to honor that institution and in fact devalues it by applying it to far more and far different than it was ever intended to be.
Respectfully submitted,
and with Best Regards and Merry Christmas,
Prof. Ricardo, Texas, USA
Prof. Ricardo,
Thank you so much for your reply! I realize this could become an endless debate but I want you and every other person out there who follows some kind of religious doctrine to know that I utterly respect your right to an opinion, I just don't think it should govern our laws. There are so many different cultures in our respective countries that no one particular faith should dictate how things are run.
In response to your statement about Adam and Eve. Many cultures and societies have developed since homosapiens first left the African continent around 60,000 years ago (https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html). And of course those humans formed binding, lifetime relationships. To not call these partnerships marriage indicates a fundemental breakdown in perception of reality.
Does my definition of marriage include incestuous relationships, or bestialy? Of course not. I am a good person and it is important to me that people or creatures that cannot fend for themselves are not abused. Mulitple partners are a different topic altogether, but again...if all parties are consensual then why not? I don't think that any comparison can be reasonably made between nonconsentual relationships and same sex marriage.
Is it possible for someone to argue against same-sex marriage without referencing the Bible? I think that if a person chooses a partner to spend the rest of their lives with, to cohabitate with, to share financial responsibilities, and (I'm sure I'm stirring the pot here) possibly child rearing responsiblities then they should be able to "marry" them, in the eyes of the law.
So I say, to Prof. Ricardo and all other like-minded folks: the times they are a changin'. You can change with it or get left behind with the self-centered opinion that everyone should believe the same things that you do. We are a diverse planet. We can't all be right.
Sincerely,
Lynne and Scott
Dawson, YT
BAH! Christianity is too high on itself. The rules it imposes are waaayy to picky and bigoted.
I don't see why it's so influential in the government, I mean, according to some versions of the bible, you have to shave your beard a certain way!
I think that church and law should remain far seperated, if the christians don't want their couples gay or lesbian, then they can keep them straight, it isn't really justifiable of them to force their rules upon the general population.
On the other bloggers comment about incestuous marriages, etc, that's a whole different world. Incest fools around with the gene pool, and puts out harmful genetic mutations into the general world, gay marriage does no such thing. Ageism is also harmful, in most cases, it would be an abuse of the older parties authority over the younger. Once again, no such issue.
Gay marriage hurts no one, and offends only those who choose to be bigoted for all the wrong reasons.
This is your kid by the way. You probably figured it out by the whole lack of eloquence and such.
Heh.
I don't know. Same sex. I like the variety of difference for myself. But to each their own. The world isn't going to end because Elton married his boyfriend. I sure hope he isn't planning on having kids. Pretty tough with their anatomy. But there's always a first. Mary was a virgin after all and so miracles do happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home