Just moments before writing this, I engaged in a facebook debate on the rights of homosexuals. I, personally, believe that gays have as much right to marry as anyone. But… that’s not to say my beliefs can’t or won’t be changed… provided substantial evidence and/or logic obligates me to do so. That is why I debate. Get the other side’s view of things. The issue I was trying to bring to the table was not about whether homosexuality is wrong or not, but instead as to why some people must force that it is wrong on those who don’t believe that it is. I won’t go into the debate itself, but after having that debate, my stance grew stronger. As such, I think a blog is in good order about the topic.
John Doe believes that homosexual marriage is wrong. As such, he gets his degree in Political Science and runs for mayor. After his mayoral term is over, he puts in his nomination for the Senate. Having successfully completed two terms as Senator, he engages in the Presidential candidacy. He wins. Now, as President, he can ensure that homosexuals everywhere are prevented from marrying. Why? Because HE believes that homosexual marriage is wrong. This is where things get dicey. Gays aren’t forcing their beliefs on him. Those who support gay marriage are not requiring him to marry another man. So why is he forcing gays (should they choose to get legally married) to marry women? What makes his stance better than that of John Q. Public? His stance is equal. He has every right to believe it is wrong for people of the same gender to marry. More power to him… so long as he doesn’t use that power to inflict his personal opinions on those he has power over. That is what Adolph Hitler did, and look how that turned out. Real politics should be about ensuring that EVERY American has the freedom to do as they wish, so long as they do not bring harm upon another. Is homosexuality unnatural? Maybe. According to a lot of people it is, and a lot of others it’s not. Is it a sin. Maybe. Wrong? Maybe. It doesn’t matter. It is not inflicting harm on others, nor is it being forced into the lives of people who are against it. There are a lot of people who are against it, but have actually accepted this view. So, they have another rebuttal: Legalizing it would influence the children. Well, if that were the case, then we need to take away the porn stores, liquor licenses, and cigarettes, etc. It would remove someone’s individual freedom, but that don’t matter…. it influences the children. But these things aren’t removed. Why? Because it’s not the job of society as a whole to regulate how children are influenced. That is the job of parents. If you believe that your child should be taught that homosexual marriage is wrong, then by all means, do so! Gays getting marriage only stands as an example for you to use in your teaching. If the Bible is your platform for those teachings, and it most likely is, then you must realize that the world is a battleground to help ground it’s teachings. What is a battleground without the battle?
There was a time in my life in which I believed that homosexuality was wrong, but even during that time, I never believed that I should be responsible for preventing others from engaging in their beliefs. It’s not up to the individual to enforce his or her beliefs on the rest of the world. It is up to the individual to enforce equal freedom for all. Everyone has the right to express themselves however they desire. Gays have the human right to express themselves as their expression doesn’t hurt anyone anywhere in any way. Whether we want to believe it or not, allowing freedom to extend to the point of “every law-abiding citizen should be allowed to do what any other law abiding citizen is allowed to do” would only serve to strengthen our country… and even strengthen those who believe it is wrong.
Of all the laws in this country, the greatest law is this: Freedom is given to us all. It is the main theme of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. When a homosexual is turned away for a marriage certificate, the law has been broken.
Amos D. Littrell
Hmmmm… You are, as always, thought provoking. Though I’m not entirely ready to hop onto your train, I am forced to look at things through a slightly different lens. As a conservative Christian, I believe gay marriage is wrong and have thrown my hat in with those who publicly cry out against it. But as I mature as a person, a mother, and as a Christian, I’ve begun to reevaluate the “causes” I’ve always supported. I’ve come to realize that as a fallen race (and boy, are we ever!!), there are no laws other than God’s laws that will help us. I used to be a pro-lifer, but I see every day that outlawing abortion doesn’t make an unwanted baby loved or fed or nurtured. Pass all the gun laws you want, and crazy people will blast their way into schools and shopping malls with illegally obtained guns, or with homemade explosives… What I’m saying is that I no longer believe that outlawing sin keeps people from sinning. So, maybe I’m with you on this after all. Thanks for making me think about it a new way.
You are the first of the conservatives to actually read into this correctly. The issue at hand here is NOT whether homosexuality is right or wrong. That has nothing to do with it. It’s about allowing everyone to believe in whatever they want and express those beliefs. But, most conservatives that I share this view with always jump on the “it’s wrong” train and miss the point completely.
You’d probably be surprised to learn that my hesitation toward redefining marriage has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of homosexuality. It has to do with the question of what marriage actually is, and why the state has any interest in promoting or regulating it in the first place. The whole reason for the state to take any interest in marriage was, traditionally, a marriage was a union of one man and one woman, within which children (the next generation of a society) were to be created and nurtured. The family unit was the foundation of a society, and the marriage was the foundation of the family. If a marriage (as recent generations have come to see it) is just about two people in love making a long-term commitment to one another, the state has absolutely no vested interest in promoting that or regulating it in any way. This is why I find the argument that allowing homosexuals to marry will degrade the institution so ridiculous. Heterosexuals have already done a bang-up job of that all by themselves. I feel, in large part, that we’re being pushed toward a major redefinition of a foundational element of society, and that the driving force is largely emotional in nature.
Rather, they seem to operate from the preconceived notion that everyone who disagrees with them is automatically a hateful bigot. 
Anyway, enough for now. <3
Another concern I have is that in nations that have preceded us in “gay rights” and gay marriage laws, it has become a problem as far as censorship and religious discrimination. Priests/pastors who preach that homosexuality is sin are accused of “hate speech” and subjected to various legal penalties. Even private, religious schools are being told they cannot legally teach that matters such as abortion or homosexuality are wrong. How long do you suppose it will take in the good old United States (especially with a President who seems to have no respect for religious liberty over his own agenda) before a church or minister is facing a lawsuit (perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court) because they refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple? I don’t find that a ludicrous suggestion in a world where bakers who refuse to make a cake for the happy couple find themselves in court. What happened to taking your business where they appreciate it, and businesses having the right to refuse service? Now, if a company refuses your business, instead of saying “up yours” and going somewhere else with our money, we take them to court to FORCE them to take our money? O.o
Now, I understand that most homosexuals would respect a religion’s right not to perform their ceremony, just as most atheists have no problem with the ten commandments or a manger scene display. But judging by recent history, all it takes is one person throwing a tantrum and insisting that everyone do things their way, lest they be offended, to screw things up all across the board. And the vocal minority is very unlike a certain good friend of mine.
If we base this off of the results of other countries, then yes. What you say is possible. But is it any different than the way things are going now? No matter what, whether legal or illegal, someone is going to throw that tantrum you speak of. It is a consequence that is unavoidable… it is just the way people are. But, America has one nice little tool under it’s belt that can be used should someone try to punish the church for “hate speech.” It’s the first amendment. While freedom of speech won’t stop the tantrums, it will stop the repercussions of them. Look at the WBC. We KNOW that’s hate speech and the world has called out against them. But has it stopped them? Our attempts at backlash fail against them because they back themselves up with the first amendment. I do agree with you though that the definition of marriage for a society is changing, even against the efforts of many. Personally, I think that societal definitions of anything should not as commonplace as they are. Anything with a societal definition to it tends to prevent one’s freedom of and individual definition. Granted, there are many things that NEED to be defined only by society… but I don’t think marriage is one of them seeing that it is very “belief” oriented… and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
Some have called for the abolishment of civil marriage altogether as a solution to this problem. Then each individual/couple would be able to define “marriage” on their own terms. I’m not saying it’s a solution I support, or am against. But I do know this: When something has too many meanings, eventually, it has no clear meaning at all. I believe it’s time to set emotion aside (as best as possible) and consider with caution the various solutions to the conflict. And considering the current climate, some of us are very afraid to trust that our rights and liberties (especially those of a religious nature) will be protected under the Constitution, when two items in the Bill of Rights are under direct attack.