When people struggle to construct a logical argument to stop something they're against they usually resort to citing imagined outcomes that are either absurd or terrifying - sometimes both.
For instance – “We cannot allow people to marry a partner of
their choice or we will be allowing men to marry horses.”
Of course to allow this argument we must also acknowledge
shooting a horse would be murder, owning a horse would be slavery and riding a horse would be just a little weird. We would also need to redefine what we consider to be
inclusive of the human race. In fact, there is not much of our legal common law system we
wouldn’t have to redefine to fear this outcome.
Or, we could send a grade three teacher across the floor of
the government assembly to the elected represented who dared to argue gay
marriage should be disallowed on the grounds that horses would be choosing
bridesmaids and have her rap that idiot over the knuckles with her discipline
stick.
We are talking about the right of people to marry the
person of their choice in a binding, moral, spiritual
union. If you argue this means we would need to redefine what marriage is, then
fine - redefine it. Our legal system has a legislative history and continued existence built on the revision of earlier laws so why suddenly set in stone those aspects that help
the prejudicial deny change to those wanting and needing change?
But then there's religion. Christian...
Muslim...
Hindu and Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama's views aside..Traditional Buddhism has for centuries adopted the view of sexuality that is fast becoming the populist accepted view - allowing variation on sexual attraction to be dictated by individuals and not by the few for the masses, as has been the practice of many societies and religions to this point in our history.
Religious freedom is a basic human right and
many around the world, within a variety of different religions still live
incredibly pious lives and adhere to the teaching and interpretation of their
faith and their faith’s leaders.
This cannot simply be dismissed and if it is, then the argument of gay marriage as a fundamental right can only be made at the expense of other people’s fundamental rights. Faith based beliefs have been so strongly held by the human race through out time they have shaped our history and all too often these beliefs have led to the death of individuals who try to enforce change or disrespect another's religion.
This cannot simply be dismissed and if it is, then the argument of gay marriage as a fundamental right can only be made at the expense of other people’s fundamental rights. Faith based beliefs have been so strongly held by the human race through out time they have shaped our history and all too often these beliefs have led to the death of individuals who try to enforce change or disrespect another's religion.
Marriage, for many, is still the most seriously held religious pledge
and blessing made to and given by God. It would be wrong for those who consider marriage as less sacred to force those
who are deeply religious and consider marriage a central doctrine within
their belief system to treat it the same way.
For both sides, this choice is a human rights issue.
It is a human right for every member of society to be allowed to take a partner of their choice, to create a family and make a commitment pledge that is morally and spiritually binding, in whatever manner those individuals choose.
It is a human right for every member of society to be allowed to take a partner of their choice, to create a family and make a commitment pledge that is morally and spiritually binding, in whatever manner those individuals choose.
But human rights go both ways and often, as, I believe, is
the case with gay marriage, two groups, with differing human rights, find these rights in conflict with each other.
Is it justified to force a religious body, officials or congregations to accept a
religious ceremony that the body, officials or congregation believe denigrates
their religion and devalues their faith?
Freedom of faith, and therefore protection of that faith as those people see it, is also a basic human right.
Of course, this still leaves any argument against a state certified non religious form of gay marriage based on antiquated laws as looking ridiculous. Who is state condoned gay marriage hurting in that case?
But there is still a case to be argued for those citing religion as their primary opposition to gay marriage.
Personally I believe and hope that religious people and bodies who choose to oppose gay marriage, and, in so doing, deny equal rights to gays, will lessen in number and fade away as their position becomes increasingly untenable to the wider community. If this happens it will be interesting to see if they change their view in order to survive.
But, regardless of this personal view or hope, I believe the bigger and current issue that needs to be brought front and centre is that those arguing against gay
marriage, while claiming a tolerance of gay people, need to be 'outed' as being incredibly two faced and hypocritical.
You cannot be a little sanctimonious about this issue. If you claim a religiously based human rights charter as an argument to deny marriage to same sex couples you must also claim a personally held religious belief that condemns all same sex attraction as something outside your own personal and spiritual beliefs. Not to do so makes no sense and totally undermines your gay marriage argument.
If you argue against gay marriage on the basis of an ever changing man made legislative agenda that has been constantly changed and update throughout time to accommodate change in society, then you are clinging to it for only one possible reason - to hide your homophobia.
You cannot be a little sanctimonious about this issue. If you claim a religiously based human rights charter as an argument to deny marriage to same sex couples you must also claim a personally held religious belief that condemns all same sex attraction as something outside your own personal and spiritual beliefs. Not to do so makes no sense and totally undermines your gay marriage argument.
If you argue against gay marriage on the basis of an ever changing man made legislative agenda that has been constantly changed and update throughout time to accommodate change in society, then you are clinging to it for only one possible reason - to hide your homophobia.
You cannot sit on the fence and claim to love gays, but deny them marriage. Tony Abbott,
the Australian opposition leader famously tried to do this by describing same
sex couples entering into civil unions as having relationships that were no
less loving and worthwhile than any other relationships, but then declared he
didn’t believe they had the right to marry, where marriage would allow exactly the same rights and spiritual union to same sex couples as heterosexual couples.
Trying to argue a separation between an anti same sex
marriage stance and a subtle or overt homophobia is illogical. To argue against gay marriage is to argue that in some way you see gay unions as less worthy or less valid a partnership option than that
of a man and a woman. To do this you must view homosexuality as less worthy or less valid.
If you are against gay marriage on religious grounds then you are against
homosexuality on religious grounds. To date I have not heard anyone argue against gay marriage, and then embrace the gay community and not sound foolish. The only coherent argument is to
site a conviction that your God, through your religion, has made it clear
homosexuality is not acceptable.
I don’t agree with that argument, but I respect it. In fact I would argue against people or groups with these views from being forced to
change their charters to accommodate gay marriage. Of course once the majority of people, including a majority within these religions start advocating for change alongside the gay community, what do we do? What's the equation that dictates when a human right should be granted to the many if it involves the loss of a human right for the few? How many are enough and how many are too few?
When no loss of life or injury is involved in the denial of a human right, and the granting of that right conflicts with others, it becomes difficult to decide how to give everyone what they demand. And this is certainly a complicated issue for worthy minds, but, it is also time for those who are against this change on religious grounds, or any other indefensible legal grounds, to be held to account. You cannot have it both ways and we should stop allowing our leaders of both church and state this luxury.
When no loss of life or injury is involved in the denial of a human right, and the granting of that right conflicts with others, it becomes difficult to decide how to give everyone what they demand. And this is certainly a complicated issue for worthy minds, but, it is also time for those who are against this change on religious grounds, or any other indefensible legal grounds, to be held to account. You cannot have it both ways and we should stop allowing our leaders of both church and state this luxury.
If you are against a fundamental human right, in this case social equality, being extended
to people for any reason, then you are against those people fundamentally for the same reasons.
You may only be mildly against them, you may convey and even publicly advocate social tolerance of them, perhaps to cynically remain 'politically correct', but to be against by any degree still means you're against and regard that group, on some level, as less worthy of the full rights of your society.
You may only be mildly against them, you may convey and even publicly advocate social tolerance of them, perhaps to cynically remain 'politically correct', but to be against by any degree still means you're against and regard that group, on some level, as less worthy of the full rights of your society.
You cannot claim acceptance of gay people and their partnerships and not
of gay marriage. If you do the time has come for the rest of us to out you as a hypocrite and certainly label you as no friend of Dorothy's. Even the laws of optics make it clear that no-one can have a foot either side of a rainbow.
Scott Norton Taylor - Inner City - Ebook for Kindle, Epub Sony, Palm or online!
Reviews: From Amazon
Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase
Posted December 1, 2012
Great read.
A story filled with with love, hate, violence, peace and so much more. 538 pages of wondering what will happen
next. A FULL story from start to finish. Thanks to the author for sharing a great work with the readers.
Posted July 8, 2012
Couldn't put it down...
For this to have been a free book, it was wonderful. The author keeps you on the edge of your seat. I couldn't
put this down. I think this would make a great movie!
Posted April 20, 2012
Amazing
Perfectly written with great detail it was thought provoking and asked the fundemental question of would you
stick up for what you believed was right even if you would be killed for doing so.
Posted April 5, 2012
This book is AWESOME! it keeps you wanting to read the entire ti
This book is AWESOME! it keeps you wanting to read the entire time. It tells of 2 worlds, and both are
extremely unique. One of the best books I've ever read!
