Wednesday, October 29, 2008

My Turn on Prop 8 Thoughts

I posted this as a comment in one of the Coolkidsroom's entries, but I put more effort in it than I intended so I thought I would post it here as well -

"One really has to consider how society today views marriage as opposed to the institution's origins and history. In ancient times, a "marriage" was based on property distribution, gaining power, or having children. If this is the case, wouldn't it make sense for these arrangements to have existed long before humans even began to record history, before anything that we would recognize now as religion? For many religions today, bringing children into the world and raising them to believe in God is still stressed within marriage - does that mean an infertile man or woman has no reason to marry? Of course not.

In any case, it is obvious that the reasons for "marriage" have evolved as we have. Not everyone views marriage as a religious union, but as a legal and/or social union. It wasn't even until the 1500's when the Council of Trent required the presence of a priest and witnesses in order for a Roman Catholic marriage to be recognized. Before this point, marriage by consent was the norm. Does this invalidate the "marriages" prior to this point?

Long story short, why do (most) people want to get married nowadays? To spend the rest of their life with someone they love, legitimize their relationship in the public eye, whatever have you. What makes 2 men or 2 women wanting this different from a man and a woman? The church has stood the test of time and whoever wants to follow what the church suggests, that's fine. But not everyone wants a religious wedding. Not everyone is religious. The freedom of religion means the freedom to worship whoever you like, however you'd like, but it also means to not pass legislation in our country that would infringe another's freedom of religion or freedom to not adopt religion at all, which includes the right to a marriage defined outside of the church's terms.

Honestly, I don't know why people are so bothered with how others conduct their lives as long as they aren't hurting themselves or the well-being of others. And as for civil unions being compared to marriages, let us remind ourselves how "separate but equal" turned out for us before..."

Edit - Part 2:

"To clear up some things, I brought up the existence of marriage before religion/recorded history because many of the most popular and influential religions are codified into a specific doctrine for which its followers must obey - the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, etc. Whether religion existed before recorded history or not does not matter, you really cannot state that marriage was created through the church as we know it, therefore the church has no more right to control marriage than the state does.

As for the personal freedom issue, whether Prop 8 passes or not, heterosexuals are not denied the right to marry. Voting no on Prop 8 really is not infringing on your or my freedom of religion because we will still be able to exercise our right to be married if we pleased. If Prop 8 passes, some of our friends would lose that right. Nothing would change about the church. The church will not recognize same-sex marriage either way, so only the freedom of homosexuals will have a real impact. Just like when Roe vs. Wade was passed - the church's position on abortion remained the same, and those who stood against abortion still had the choice of being pro-life. Legalized abortion was not forced into their ideology.

The entire text of Proposition 8 is less than 10 sentences long, but the only words that matter are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". This includes marriage through church, marriage through the state, marriage period. Same-sex couple will not be able to marry, even with a separation of church and state. Where is the equality in that? Even if civil unions are supposedly equal to marriage, then why do people still want to get married and not just accept a civil union? Or leave it at cohabitation? What marriage means to you is different from what it means to me, from everyone else in California, and it has changed and evolved since the beginning. There is much more to marriage that transcends sexual orientation."

6 comments:

...RAWfiki said...

the fact that you arent afraid of what people may say about this or your opinions in general makes me appreciate you that much more

Just Ray said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sappy relationship moment ahhaha i appreciate you raf ;)

but preach sista preach haha

Anonymous said...

marriage = man + woman. you can't play coed tennis with 2 men or 2 women. its the definition. does it make coed better than men's doubles? no. simple analogy, but i think it fits. gays can create a name for a union and call it whatever they want, i recommend 'gayrriage'. however marriage means between a man and woman. that's it.

...RAWfiki said...

i guess if everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Kristine said...

I know I'll disagree with many people on many different topics, that's fine. I would just rather live in a society where we're all seen as true equals, not separate, even if some people live untraditional, alternative lifestyles. We will never get there if you give the term "marriage" legal weight then alienate a group of people from having these rights. Separate will never mean equal. I say you go do what you want as long as you're not hurting yourself or the well-being of others, even if people will look at you funny or with disgust - who cares, it doesn't affect them. I'm trying to reach a point where when I say equality for all, I mean it. And if that means "Oh no but that means (Group A) or (Group B) will have the same rights as us!", no matter how different they are, then so be it. I'll leave the judging to someone else.

Just Ray said...

I thin that the "definition" of marriage to people has changed through the years. Not to mention words in general have changed meaning countless times so why can't marriage change.

white-
auspicious or fortunate.
morally pure; innocent without malice; harmless:

black-
without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked

who came up with definitions like these? so do words always reflect what the words mean to different people?