Comment on ONE topic from the list below:
1) Should same-sex marriage be legalized? Why or why not?
2) Is affirmative action still needed? If you think not, how would you propose we deal with race and gender discrimination in employment and housing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
First of all I believe that the churches and evangelicals in particular need to get out of people’s bedrooms. What two consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business. Second of all the governments of all states as well as the federal government need to pay attention to the constitution and forget what religious leaders have to say about peoples rights of sexual expression. While I cannot in good conscience include sex with children I believe adults have that right. Leaving alone the debate as to whether gays are born with their sexual tilt and addressing the fact that they are citizens and have the same rights as straight people. Before the sixties if someone admitted to being a homosexual (gay wasn’t in vogue yet) they were placed into mental institutions until they could be cured. We as a world have far too long kept gays from their rightful places in society in the name of religion. Jesus said, “let he without sin cast the first stone”, who are any of us to judge anyone about anything, since none of us are sinless? Gay couples should have the same rights as that of married couples. They should not be treated as half citizens because of their sexual persuasion. This is another right that I am willing to fight for. Our government needs to come out of the closet and enforce the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the constitution. Just as Moses said to the pharaoh, “Let my people go!” The governed needs to quit holding personal rights of gays hostage and let them go.
On a personal level, I am torn on this topic. On a political level, I do believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized due to Amendments that are currently in order. The government can not tell a person what religion to practice and they can not interfere with the practice of religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion due to the free-exercise clause (Patterson, p.111). People are also free to exercise expression and the government can not intervene. How is this any different from same-sex marriage? People should be free to marry whom ever they want to. Some people might be against it because they just don’t understand it and they can not accept change. I am not sure how I personally stand with this issue, but I do know that a person can not help who they fall in love with. There should be a boundary for our personal life. I do not believe the government should tell you who you can or can not marry. I would be furious if the government told me that I could not marry the man I love. The government would never do that to a heterosexual couple though because it is accepted in our culture. To agree with Bill, what you do in the bedroom is your personal business, not the governments. There has to be a line or the government is going to control every move we make. There should not be discrimination in our country and as the Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal”.
week 2 Chapter 5
Ask just about anyone and they all will tell you they are in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples. Just mention jobs, government benefits, equal rights, housing, etc and most people will say that same-sex couples should be allowed all these things. However, when these same people are asked about same-sex marriage, most will stop the talk of equality and oppose this issue. I myself am in favor of same-sex marriage. However, a lot of people are not and many aren’t due to the misunderstanding of homosexual relationships.
I feel that a lot of people believe that gay relationships are promiscuous, they aren’t able to form a long-lasting relationship and the ones that are formed are uncommitted. Believe it or not, the straight society has these same types of relationships. I believe that love is love regardless of who you fall there with whether they are male or female. Marriage is something that is legalized between two people who love one another and have every intention of living together as domestic and sexual partners (Encarta English Dictionary). As far as I know, that definition does not say a man and a woman, it states “two people” which could easily be interpreted to be two men or two women. I feel that if two people want to marry and be committed to one another, they should be allowed. The love that they have for one another is present and the commitment is there, where in today’s society, commitment is something hard to find whether it be in homosexual relationships or straight relationships. I feel that if two people want to take that next step forward to prove their love, commitment and devotion for one another, they should be permitted to do so.
Erica, On what do you base your opinion about Gay couples?
Some opponents of gay marriage have stated that if the state recognizes marriage between two people of the same sex, that would put us on a slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy. If the argument goes that love comes in different forms - male/female; male/male; female/female.... why not male/female/female, etc.? What do you think of this argument?
Nice polygamy twist Dr. Patton! Of course, I think that argument is rubbish. Just wait till you all read my Chapter 6 comments. Anyway, on the topic of same sex marriage: Let 'em have it. I don't agree with the lifestyle, it's not my bag, but they ARE CITIZENS just like you and I and our government needs to keep their collective noses out of our private lives. Bill makes a great statement when he argues that the "churches and evangelicals...need to get out of people's bedrooms". Just as I stated in my Chapter 4 blog, nobody has the right to force religious views upon another. It is the "moral majority" (in my opinion, a very dated sector) that has brought this issue to the forefront. And our "strong-willed" politicians cower down to that moral majority. Look at the Constitution. After all, that's what this whole class is based on. I cannot find anywhere a reference to what sexes can legally marry. So now the question, is it the responsibility of our national government to allow or disallow same sex unions? The answer should be a resounding "YES". Here's why: Social Security Survivor Benefits, Welfare, Medicare, etc. And that is why there has been some initiative to place an amendment into the Constitution. No luck at the national level, so now the states have begun to take up the issue. Some allow, some don't. Recall the 14th Amendment. Didn't some states allow women the vote long before they were granted suffrage at the national level? I'll say it again and again. My rights do NOT supercede anyone else's rights. If I don't like it, I don't have to look at it. Wouldn't it be great if our government took just a little bit of that advice? Honestly, I'm sick to death of the squeaky wheel!
Now for my response to Dr. Patton's "love in different forms". Yes, relationships among several persons/genders do exist. Surprise! I have friends who participate in those kinds of things. Let your imagination go. That's not my point. None of these friends seek a legal union, though I'm sure that some in our great nation would like to do so. Two people can be legal, but beyond that, it gets way too tricky. Mostly from a benefits point. I think that point needs to stay in place. Then again, some religions support polygamy. Would it be safe for me to say that we "should" deny those religions there right? Great blog!
Bill, I have many friends and a few members of my family that have fallen in love with the same sex. They are the best people you will ever meet. I'm sure everyone either has someone in their family or at least knows someone who is gay! I give it another 10 years and it will defintly be the norm. I mean look how far it has came since the 1990's.
Scott said...
Two people can be legal, but beyond that, it gets way too tricky. Mostly from a benefits point. I think that point needs to stay in place.
***********************************
Okay. That is the argument some people make for why polygamy would not become an issue - we would just say it's too tricky because of benefits. Say a man had three wives and he dies leaving them all behind. Would the government be required to pay all three of them Social Security benefits of the same amount, or divide his total amount by 3, etc., etc. Why can't a law just be made about polygamist marriages, as laws are made about marriages between one man and one woman? We could easily solve the "benefits problem" with a law. Then, individuals could decide if they want to assume the risks associated with that particular type of marriage given the particular laws. The law might state that full benefits go to the "first wife" and it is up to her to determine distribution or not to the "other wives"...
There is a different argument for why we, as a society, could justify the legalization of marriage between two people of the same gender, but continue to deny polygamists (and they are out there) legal marriage. Anyone know how to make that argument?
I am reposting in response to Erica after realizing she posted it for the wrong chapter. I would also like to say something in response to Bill wren's use of the Bible in his defense of allowing homosexual marriage. Absolutely Jesus said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” and he meant it. I also agree that Christians should be more loving of people dealing with the "sin" of homosexuality yet loving people is very different from accepting a sin! You have heard the old saying love the sinner hate the sin. Ye when using scripture it is important to use it in the right context and as a whole. To not do so is a terrible miss use and abuse of the book. In fact before one chooses to pick and chose what parts that they like and support they should try reading the whole book and understanding the whole message. While being mindful of contextual exegesis. As for the story about Jesus that was brought up let me remind you of the end of the story though Jesus spared the woman’s life but his last words to the woman, caught in the very act of adultery, were " go and sin no more!" Yet aside from this story, that dose not directly deal with homosexuality, let me draw your attention to the multiple references that do and every time condemn it as a sin. Oh and many of these New Testament references where to a society where homosexuality was the norm. I am not trying to get on a Christians defense against homosexuality I just wanted to point out the twisted use of scripture. As for Gay marriage, obviously I think it is wrong! Yet before our government legislates morality people must be moral themselves. De Tocqueville said when he came to America that he had never seen a nation with so much freedom and so few police. The reason he concluded is because Christian or non-Christian people then morally restrained themselves allowing for more freedom and less government interference. Something that is becoming almost unheard of today! In addition, as we become increasingly flipped with our morals we will begin to see government grow as it attempts to maintain that which people can no longer maintain themselves!
To comment on Erica W’s thoughts on same sex marriage:
To preface my comments: I personally believe that same sex relationships are a perversion of what is intended and are in no way moral. However I believe that lost of things are immoral and such beliefs do not keep me being friends with people how make all kinds of choices I disagree with.
Erica spoke of love and commitment, which sounds fine and is but is no way the norm for anyone for our society. Just look at divorce rates, children born out of wedlock, single parent homes and much more. Yet even more alarming is the rate of unfaithfulness and promiscuity among homosexuals. Opra recently did a special on the homosexual lifestyles and discussed staggering figures and trends among gay men. One such trend is that of bathhouses where one man may have up to 30 partners in one night. Another scary trend is the practicing of “bare backing” (the engaging in anal sex without a condom with a sick or weak looking man) the purpose is to see if one can come out of the sexual encounter without aids. Also discussed was the increasing trend of meth use among gays with heightens sex drive and stamina and allows for more activity. Yet non of this is new information, David Horowitz the founder of the new left movement in his book Radical son discusses his research about homosexual “relationship/s encounters” in America in the 80’s and 90’s. Here he visits bath houses and talks with many homosexuals and finds: “that studies show that nearly 70 percent of the gay population frequent bath houses, and that the average bath house patron had nearly 3 sexual contacts on any given night, and a 33 percent chance of walking out with a venereal disease”. He found that such bathhouses were set up with anonymous sex rooms with waist level holes in the wall and giant orgy rooms. Along with such staggering research he details graphic details of why gay men are more likely to contract aids then a promiscuous heterosexual couple. So regardless of ones feelings such facts and lifestyles should be shocking to us and I would hope that in America we would choose to stand for some level of morality rather then fall prey to any given desire.
On the issue of should gays be allowed to marry, my moral convictions to this question is no, they should not be. However, on the issue of equal rights, I am not one to say that gays should not have the right to marriage. If marriage can help reduce the promiscuous nature of many gays and they stay within a monogamous relation with one person, then I am all for same-sex marriage. After reading the posting of the other students, I see that many feel that politically, same-sex couples should have the rights as heterosexual couples in marrying. I am friends with several gay men and all of the ones that I know live very stable lives and all are in committed relationships with one other person. I also have met gays who were risk takers and all of my gay friends knew who they were and always told me that they would not risk their lives over unsafe sex. As for polygamy, actually have met a man who had two wives, when I lived in Washington DC and all I will say is that their relationship was not what I call a traditional marriage. However, the three of them seemed quite happy and I remember asking them if they really were married, and all they would say was that they were.
In agreement with Erica W. who said that a lot of people are not in support of same-sex marriage and many are not due to the misunderstanding of homosexual relationships. Some people I feel, are just bigoted when it comes to regards of homosexuals. They feel threatened and are afraid that to give the same rights to gays will erode traditional family values and our country will head down a path towards hell.
Also, I believe in what Ashley Mason wrote about the “divorce rates, children born out of wedlock, single parent home…” and the problems of homosexuals in their promiscuous sex lives. I think that as a group, not all homosexuals are engaging in this activity, however, there does seem to be a large percentage. I suspect if you look at heterosexual relationships, there are percentages that are engaging in promiscuous sex.
I believe same-sex marriage should be legalized because it is not fair to deny two people the same rights as others based on their sexual preference. Homosexuals that are citizens of the United States are entitled to equal rights and treatment according to the fourteenth amendment. The Constitution declares equal treatment and protection from discrimination based on sexual preference; however banning same-sex marriage can be interpreted as a contradicting the Constitution. The text discusses the recent success same-sex couples have had including domestic partner benefits, such as healthcare. However, this does not include inheritances and hospital visitation rights (145).
Vermont and Massachusetts have legalized same-sex marriages and I believe this can be interpreted as stepping stones before other states legalize same-sex marriage.
I will not be negatively affected if the courts allow same-sex couples to marry. Then why should I stand in the way of letting two committed people benefit from the sanction of marriage? Same-sex couples are taxpaying citizens and should be allowed the same advantages. Who people choose to love should not be a discriminatory factor in the eyes of the law.
So not to change the subject or anything but in my opinion affirmative action is only preferential racism and is no longer needed. I think that race and gender blind applications and such would easily solve the problem. This way a person knows that they got in to school, received the house or job not because of skin color but instead they got it because of their qualifications. Economist and author Thomas Sowell says in his Book Black Red Necks and White Liberals that affirmative action dose more harm to minorities then benefits. Not only dose such action devalue the true worth of a person but places them in a position that they might not be qualified for. It also forces companies and schools not to use the most qualified people instead they are forced to meet quotas and higher based on skin color. Tell me how fair it is for me as a woman to knock a more qualified male student out of graduate school just because I have breast? It is not! if I wanted in, I should have studied harder and done better on test. I would be infuriated to know that I was let in by gender and not my hard work and achievements. I absolutely agree with Thomas Sowell (who by the way is a African American) that such preferential treatment is nothing more then discrimination and any type of discrimination are wrong! It should be called what it is and we should try to work towards a true color and gender blind society. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of a Society where Blacks and Whites were equal not one race being lifted above the other this was the very thing he lost his life to stop.
There are multiple agendas at work in the debate over same-sex marriages. If the end result of such a debate did not depend on election votes, then it might not be an issue at all. Clearly, those in office abuse their power to keep their voters, represented through the perversion of the so-called objective definition of marriage. Unfortunately, Erica, working definitions cannot be pulled from a dictionary or from the biased lips of politicians. This is where the conservatives seemingly sidestep the real issues of freedom, equality, and rights. “America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.” (President Bush, 2004, whitehouse.gov) Yet, what would be redefined? A definition of marriage was passed in an act by Congress in 1996 which defined marriage as “the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” (whitehouse.gov) Our leaders know the law, they know our rights, and they know how to avoid bringing them into play. People in office play the word game, and if we could get past it, we would make progress. Yes, same-sex marriage should be legalized. Not because of what marriage is, but because of who it is, two American citizens, should it be legalized. Americans are people; we are not gays and straights. We are citizens. We are neighbors. We have rights and we have love and passion. We need not to let marriage impose its rigid and cold definition upon us. We must go beyond a dictionary or political definition. Let marriage not define the people of the United States, but let Americans live out what marriage ought to be and that will redefine marriage.
Bill Wren,
Your opening statement was that "churches and evangelicals in particular need to get out of people's bedrooms." Then you quote the Bible later in the blog more than once to help prove your opinion on the matter. So should religion be used in this decision or shouldn't it?
Should same sex marriage be legalized? I think that is a question that really varies because now days people that are married to the opposite sex really dont take there marriage as seriously as they should the divorce rate seems so high. Back to the question morally no same sex should not be legalized but thats such an Opiniated reply. It should be legalized why do gays not have the same rights as the so called "norms". Like erica said who are we to classify normal. Really we all just want to be loved and have the same oppurtunity as others. If my child or children were to be gay I know then I would look at it from a different point of view I would be right there by his or her side marching in the parade saying we need equal rights. Then again I have several friends and yes a few family members whom are gay and think that they are out of the norm and that they should not have the same rights as do opposite sex marriages and that if it gets legalized that they will protest. So I think this should go to the polls if they want it give it. If not then keep it the same.
I just think that were spending to much time arguing about little things. If they want it give it they are citizens to and as for all these bible quotes really we have to remember when were speaking of our opinion here we just shouldnt use the bible because if I recall it says
JUDGE ME NOT FOR YE BE JUDGED For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged
matthew 7 I believe
I want to say first that I don't have a problem with gay people. I think that it is wrong, but what they do in private is up to them. On the other hand, I do not think that gays should be allowed to get married. I bleieve that mariage is and always has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I agree with the argument made by the US conference of Catholic Bishops in the book (pg 146). Marriage of a man and a woman starts the basic foundations for a family. The ideal American family is a mother, father, and children, not two moms or two dads. I think that by legalizing gay marriage we would be going against all the morals and principles that this country has had for years. So, I do not agree that gays should be allowed to get married and have all the rights and benefits that a male/female marriage has.
Bill,
When you said, "While I cannot in good conscience include sex with children I believe adults have that right", do you mean that it is ok for an adult to have sex with a child?
Personally the gay marriage topic is not as big as other issues and doesn’t concern me to much. Gay couples are U.S. citizens therefore should receive the same rights as straight couples. The government has no business in thier business. Whether gays are born with that sexuality or just expressing their freedoms is their beliefs. Its not my place to judge. Everyone is created equal and have the same rights to do as they please that is why this is America, we are free.
In regard to same-sex marriages...
My fiance thinks that I'm a libertarian for thinking this way, and maybe it's true, but I believe (as I mentioned in my week 1 chapter 3 post) in what John S. Mill says. People should be allowed to do as they please as long as they do not harm anyone else. Who does gay marriage harm? Some people say that it may harm whatever children the couple may have, but I think that any home where there are parents (whether they are male or female) who are loving can't be harmful. Some people say that gay marriage is forbidden in the Bible. Since when has this country based their laws on religion? I believe that the Constitution prohibits that. People should be allowed to marry whomever they please whether that person is male, female, or both.
I personally believe that same-sex marriages should not be legalized. However, my reasons for this will most likely be disregarded by most of you as soon as you are read my blog. My opinion on the matter isnt rooted politically, but religiously. I am a sinner, everyone sins, so i do not intend to cast judgements on anyone or any lifestyle because i could devote all of my energy on self improvement and still not be anywhere near perfect. Yet at the same time i believe in the Bible whole-heartedly. The Biblical view on homosexuality is that it is a perverse act, and should not be supported. Everyone has free will to live the lifestyle they choose, and that is there own business. I know many homosexuals and consider many of them friends. Biblically, our reason for living is to live by the laws of God, spread the Word of God, and love everyone. So my opinion on the matter hopefully wont fall into the same category as people who "hate" homsexuals, or people who want to cast harsh judgements on homosexuals. I just simply cant support same-sex MARRIAGE with a clear conscience. People have the right to choose their sexual orientation, but i feel that same-sex marriage is corrupting what marriage is all about. The phrase same-sex marriage" is hypocritical from a technical viewpoint. Look up marriage in the dictionary and it will describe it as a union between a man and a women. It isnt listed as a union between two consenting adults, it specifies that the union is between members of the opposite sex. With all this said, i strive to love all people, including homosexuals because that is what God commands of me. But if asked to cast a vote one way or the other on the issue of same-sex marriage, i would have to say i cannot support it.
Dr. Patton- I'll bite. Suggesting further arguments beyond the benefits issue has me thinking. Thank, I love these kinds of conversations. At the moment, I can think of only two other arguments why our government may forbid polygamy. #1- I can see where there would be some issue with genetics. Polygamy can weaken the gene pool, but I don't think that's where you are headed. #2- Major disputes over custody of children in death/divorce situations also comes to mind. To cite examples in this situation could become staggering. How about a hint?!
Post a Comment