The election is in 34 days, and will be the first I have had the opportunity to participate in. In addition to the usual voting for president and congressional candidates, as a native Californian, I will be voting on Proposition 8 on November 4th.
More specifically, I will be voting YES on Proposition 8 on November 4th. For those who aren’t sure what a YES vote on this proposition means, I will be voting to ensure that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
There are numerous reasons for my position on homosexual “marriage”. A good number of them stem from my religious faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Others are rather secular reasons that do not have their basis in religion.
Now, let me tell you, being a college student opposed to homosexual “marriage” (let alone other pillars of liberal faith like abortion), is quite an experience. This is true even in a university that is located in a very conservative area, such as Clemson University.
I have run up against probably every basic argument in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage” during the past year. The one I have found to be most favored by liberals is this, “Why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to get married”.
For reasons unknown to me, this argument is supposed to be persuasive. While love is obviously a very important aspect of a successful marriage, the purpose of the institution of marriage is not to give benefits to two lovers. The primary purpose for legal benefits to married couples is because the married couple is both the traditional and ideal way in which a child is raised.
I have found that the favored argument of liberals is also quite easy to turn around and turn them into bumbling idiots.
“Well, if the only requirement for marriage is for people to love each other, then why can’t a man who loves two different women be allowed to marry them both? What about a man and his sister? Or his mother or daughter?”
While it is very easy for a liberal to come out in support of the homosexual community, most will find the idea of polygamy and incest repulsive. (Of course, you will always have those crazed folk who will listen to your point and say, “You know what? That doesn’t sound like such a bad idea now that I think of it.”)
The fear of homosexual “marriage” leading to polygamy and incest is not unreasonable. This is because of what this redefined view of marriage really means.
Liberals start by stating that it is not a mother and father that are important for a child. Instead, they believe that all a child needs is two parents. Well then, if the only important thing is the number of parents, why not three parents? Four? The man loves all of his wives, why shouldn’t he be able to marry them all?
If you remove the aspect of procreation from marriage, then why not allow relatives to marry? The secular argument against incest is that the child is more likely to be born with birth defects. Well, if the couple is able to prevent from having a child (through artificial birth control or abortion), then what’s the problem? I could argue that a father loves his daughter as much if not more than non-related individuals love each other. So why not allow them to marry?
Marriage is a vital institution. It is the basic building block that holds up our society. By redefining this sacred tradition to allow for homosexuals we open the door to many other attacks, until marriage means nothing more than legal benefits.
More specifically, I will be voting YES on Proposition 8 on November 4th. For those who aren’t sure what a YES vote on this proposition means, I will be voting to ensure that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
There are numerous reasons for my position on homosexual “marriage”. A good number of them stem from my religious faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Others are rather secular reasons that do not have their basis in religion.
Now, let me tell you, being a college student opposed to homosexual “marriage” (let alone other pillars of liberal faith like abortion), is quite an experience. This is true even in a university that is located in a very conservative area, such as Clemson University.
I have run up against probably every basic argument in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage” during the past year. The one I have found to be most favored by liberals is this, “Why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to get married”.
For reasons unknown to me, this argument is supposed to be persuasive. While love is obviously a very important aspect of a successful marriage, the purpose of the institution of marriage is not to give benefits to two lovers. The primary purpose for legal benefits to married couples is because the married couple is both the traditional and ideal way in which a child is raised.
I have found that the favored argument of liberals is also quite easy to turn around and turn them into bumbling idiots.
“Well, if the only requirement for marriage is for people to love each other, then why can’t a man who loves two different women be allowed to marry them both? What about a man and his sister? Or his mother or daughter?”
While it is very easy for a liberal to come out in support of the homosexual community, most will find the idea of polygamy and incest repulsive. (Of course, you will always have those crazed folk who will listen to your point and say, “You know what? That doesn’t sound like such a bad idea now that I think of it.”)
The fear of homosexual “marriage” leading to polygamy and incest is not unreasonable. This is because of what this redefined view of marriage really means.
Liberals start by stating that it is not a mother and father that are important for a child. Instead, they believe that all a child needs is two parents. Well then, if the only important thing is the number of parents, why not three parents? Four? The man loves all of his wives, why shouldn’t he be able to marry them all?
If you remove the aspect of procreation from marriage, then why not allow relatives to marry? The secular argument against incest is that the child is more likely to be born with birth defects. Well, if the couple is able to prevent from having a child (through artificial birth control or abortion), then what’s the problem? I could argue that a father loves his daughter as much if not more than non-related individuals love each other. So why not allow them to marry?
Marriage is a vital institution. It is the basic building block that holds up our society. By redefining this sacred tradition to allow for homosexuals we open the door to many other attacks, until marriage means nothing more than legal benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment