Now like with every political decision there were (and still are) people on both sides of the issue: supporters of recognizing homosexual unions and those who don't support it. I do not support the recognition of same sex union under the banner of legal marriage. However I do agree with the LGBT community's right to protest their desire to have their unions recognized; I also agree with legally permitting homosexual behaviour; and I support their right to celebrate their political victory by the means of the Gay Pride Parade and merely walking around with rainbows and signs that say "Gay Is Good". If I believe that all people gay or straight are equal under the law and are subject to the same laws and offered the same rights and opportunities why then do I not support the LGBT's right to have their same-sex unions legally recognized?
1: Marriage is *not* a right
There is a distinct difference between a right and a right to pursue; one is an innate right and the other is an extended right or an opportunity. For a long time the politically given right or opportunity to legally marry was exclusively offered to a union of two heterosexual legal adults; so any union that exceeds outside of the parameters of two, single-statused, consenting, legal adults, of opposite sexes was not eligible for legal marriage. Now of course, irregardless of relational type and status all members of a democratic country have the right to appeal to their government that that same opportunity to enter a marriage include their type of relationship, but they should not expect it as it is not owed to them. Why? ANSWER: Marriage is not a right, its an opportunity. Now it is true that as how the natural process of democracy goes, if the masses want X (e.g. gay marriage) then the constructs of the democratic country requires them to listen to the public and respect the majority vote; so to a degree a citizen is innately owed their right to X if they are a member of the majority vote. However a question is: "Should a democratic society bend to every cry of the majority of society?" ANSWER: No; for an example what if the majority of people want theft under $1000.00 to be legal; so it would be legal to steal from someone, a store or a bank, just as long as the value is under $1000.00; should the government even entertain such a request by beginning the political democratic processes? ANSWER: No!
2: Gay marriage is *not* good for society
And in the same way the government should not have even entertained extending legal marriage to same-sex unions. Why should a government even legally recognize a relationship between its citizens? ANSWER: The relationship is good for society; so marriage is more than an opportunity for a committed couple, it is beneficial to society. But isn't same-sex unions good for society? (Or at least effectively neutral?) No.
- Society grows and gets stronger with people; society relies on its citizens to produce the next generation - heterosexual marriages keep societies moving forward.
- It is true that there are many heterosexual couples who do not want to have children or who cannot have children. However the heterosexual union is the ideal platform for child rearing if a couple in the future wishes to have a child; or if a baron couple received a "miracle baby" of sorts, or if they wish to nurture the next generation via adoption.
- The homosexual couple is designed not to have children - ergo their design does not help society by this means.
- Now it is true that on the big scheme of things the LGBT community is a mere sliver of the total population and as such their lack of fertility won't make any serious impact on society's population. However it isn't a pragmatic issue, but a logical issue. There is no logical reason to support same-sex unions whereas there is both a logical and practical reason to support heterosexual unions.
- Homosexuality is expensive. In an article I wrote located here, I indicated that the Canadian Aids Society stated:
"Since the early 1980s, AIDS has had a direct impact on gay men. Men who have sex with men account for nearly 80% of all AIDS cases reported in Canada and 46.4% of the cases reported in 2001 affected that same population."[i]In the same way Health Canada writes:
"Starting in 1979 and up to December 31, 2008, there had been 21,300 AIDS cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Since reporting began, the MSM [men who have sex with men] exposure category has accounted for the largest proportion of total AIDS cases among adults..."[ii]Regarding the homosexual sex act a 2010 Health Canada article states for 2006-2009:
"Despite differences in methodology, studies continue to document a relatively high incidence of HIV among MSM,...,"[iii]On the financial end of things; for 2009 the Canadian Aids Society indicated:
...that the economic impact of 3,070 new HIV infections in 2009 has a lifetime cost of $4,031,500,000, ...[iv]Now STI's (sexually transmitted infections) do not favour homosexuals - they don't care about race, creed, religion, how careful one tried to be while having sex or drug use, or sexual orientation - they will infiltrate and ravage the life of a heterosexual person with the same amount of indifference as they will the life of a gay man or woman; but the choice to enact on the homosexual inclination (for men in particular) is the bulk of the HIV cases and as such the bulk of the moneys spent on HIV prevention and treatment is due to the active homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality is a dangerous sexual practice. STIs are only one danger in the homosexual lifestyle; the lifestyle itself is inherently abusive to the human body. However homosexuality is not the only dangerous sexual act; there are a myriad of heterosexual sex acts that are equally stupid to engage into. However everyone has the right to do ill-advised behaviours (drink ones self into a stupor, engage into dangerous sexual practises, etc.) but the government doesn't have to recognize or endorse them.
4: What about marriage and God?
One argument offered by many Christian, as almost as a knee-jerk reaction, as one of the most important reasons to not support gay marriages is that marriage is an institution that was created by God; and it is only supported by human governments, at the hand of God. Theologically however marriage is more than a creation, it is a reflection of God's nature. For an example marriage is the image of the Trinity; just as there are three distinct persons in the Trinity - The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, there is three distinct roles being played in the marriage: God's role, the husband's and the wife's. The homosexual marriage is replacing one of those roles with a duplicate of an already established role; theologically that would be akin to a trinity consisting of: The Father, The Father and The Son (for example); this is not God and so God cannot be a part of a corruption of his creation; a creation that is supposed to reflect his nature. Romans 1:20 makes it clear that creation, shows God's divine nature. This passage often is alluded to in scientific circles so to allude to God being seen through the physical creation - and rightfully so. However marriage is also a creation and the Trinity is a divine nature - a nature that is seen through his creation since its birth.
__________________
[i] - http://www.cdnaids.ca/hivaidsandgaymen - accessed March 5, 2014
[ii] - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/9-eng.php - accessed March 5, 2014
[iii] - Ibid. accessed March 5, 2014
[iv] http://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous - accessed March 31, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment