As election day approaches closer I have not only educated myself on who I think should be the next President, but also the different propositions that we, as Americans, are to vote for. One that has particularly caught my attention is Prop 8.
Growing up in a strict Christian home I was taught that being gay was unethical and against the teachings of the bible. Of course, as I child I did not question what the adults around me said, but as I grew older and started to form my opinions I started to realize a system that I consider to be quite flawed.
Not only did I feel like it was wrong to discriminate against gay people, it felt even worse to know that in the public eye they aren't even recognized as what is to be considered "acceptable." This is so hurtful, who are we to pass that kind of judgment on people that may be slightly different from our own self? Do people discriminate against race? No. Because someone finally stood up and said no, I have had enough.
This, Prop 8, is our chance to speak on behalf for those people who don't have the liberty that everyone else does. Shouldn't everyone have the right to be happy? And as for religion, like one of the men in that youtube video said, "Jesus was a man that wanted to dignity, respect, and EQUALITY, for all." This is something I can agree with. For all those religious people who claim that biblically it is against the will of God, He also sent Jesus as an example for us to live by, a man of compassion, a man that I believe, would not discriminate.
I have attached the link for those of you who did not get to watch it already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0
3 comments:
Yes I totally agree with you. saying yes to prop 8 is a form of discrimination. in 20 years things will be so different anyways that it wont matter. but all of the old fashioned Americans that don't accept the fact that we are a changing nation need to wake up.
Well said.
Agreed 100%.
It was funny. I asked my friend how he would feel if Prop 8, which he is voting yes on, didn't get passed. He said, "I'd be upset... but I'd get over it. I'm not one of those people who would get all pissed off about it."
It saddens me that even people who are as nonchalant about it as him could potentially determine the happiness of someone else who he won't have any relation to. It's like these peoples' happiness depends on others that they don't even impact. It shouldn't be an issue at all.
It's common sense to have equality for everyone... it's common sense to allow others to be happy with the one they love. Right?
And as Carrie said, in twenty years it's all going to blow over. Times are changing. Just get with it.
I am glad you appreciated the video. I can also understand your views on prop 8.
There are many things to consider on both sides of the argument, however, that make this an especially sticky issue.
The one that I think is important because it bears consequences for both the religiously oriented position and the equal rights position and has not been touched upon by the media, I think, has to do with the fact that this is supposed to be a civil based bill that includes the notion of seperation of church and state. The wording is tricky but the idea is that the key component is that the bill tries to redefine what it means to be a couple so that there can be clarity on who gets the benefits of the state (for example, tax breaks, etc). It seems that certain people, however, some gays included, take this to mean that there are hidden motives of prejudice or something of the sort. While this may be, there is no evidence to support such a notion. I'm also not too sure of the view that the nation is changing and so it's just a matter of time. That last I checked a conservative Bush ran for office and one himself two terms, despite a growing, Western liberalism. I'm also not confident that this will change with this next election, but that remains to be seen.
The question is if we allow gays to become a joint corporate civil union, which gets the benefit of the state, why not allow other joint corporate unions to be recognized as such so that they too get civil benefits (for example, roommates who've been living together for years, siblings who've done the same, etc.)?
Now one might say that what we are considering is a marriage and not a roommate or sibling cohabitation situation, but it's important to keep in mind that because this issue has to do with the seperation of church and state and is not thought of as religious issue, the term marriage is not one having to do with religion in this context but a joint corporal civil union of man and man or woman and woman. So if this is the case, why does it have to stop there? What is the reasoning? I hope whatever definition that is come up with, it has nothing at all to do with sexual habits. That would be a very weak argument, unprecendented, and at the very extreme, very odd to see in the constitution.
There's another issue to consider. Some might argue that homosexual couples (males more than females) have a higher seperation rate than heterosexuals. This has heavy consequences for what is thought to be the divorce rate. I'm not so much concerned with what this means religiously as I am for the already overtaxed court system it will impinge on now that marriage is includes homosexual couples.
Things to consider, I think.
Post a Comment