When I was in high school, Ross Perot ran for president. He advocated a couple of things I didn't like - (1) he was in favor of a flat tax rate -- those who benefit more from society (i.e., the business owners who make lots of money) should give more back to society, and (2) he was against gay marriage -- who the heck cares who one loves. There were likely more, but I didn't pay THAT much attention to Mr. Perot back then and am not taking the time to look up his positions. Anyway, I remember clearly the day I was driving with my father and he told me that he did not think that gay people should be allowed in roles of supervisors of children. We had a large argument about this.
Today, my brother called me stating "I think I fucked up." He said he was talking my parents and he outed multiple of our mutual gay friends. I think that he didn't fuck up and that what he did was probably something that should've been done a long time ago. In particular, one of our friends has all but been disowned by her mother. She's a lesbian who is going to have a baby with her partner of over seven years. Apparently, her brother has taken the same route. I've known that family since I was seven years old and don't believe they'd behave that way to their daughter -- apparently, my beliefs are wrong.
But then I got on this other discussion with my brother. It was about whether marriage should be allowed at all. One percent of people are asexual. And yet there are benefits associated with being married that society allows one. I think that marriage should be disallowed as a state function and that it should be allowed as a religious one -- it seems to me that most of the important aspects of marriage either (a) discriminate against people -- perhaps the one percent of asexuals, or (b) are religious in nature -- and last I checked, we espoused separation of church and state -- although W sometimes makes me question that.
So the discussion went this way. My brother disagrees and thinks that the point of marriage is to have kids. That argument is very much like the Catholic church position -- one of the ends of marriage (at least according to the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae issued and 1968 and reaffirmed by the church in Veritatis Splendor in 1993 -- though the idea has been around since who knows when -- likely right after the time of Paul where the Church decided that the "eminent parousia" (i.e., soon to occur end of the world with the return of Jesus) wasn't so eminent -- Paul (though not officially a Pope -- in the early Church, everything went the way of Peter other than one issue that went Paul's way -- that Christians did not need to embrace all the practices of Judaism) was reinterpreted -- anyway, encyclicals aren't ever overturned -- Paul's idea of eminence was just on the wrong time scale -- as the Pope speaks for God and can't be wrong, though they do get "reinterpreted"). Anyway, the way that my brother can hold his position is that gays must have children -- be allowed to adopt or get a sperm donor. But it seems to me that it is dictating an ends for people that they may or may not want. Then again, he is accurate that most Americans marry and have kids, and therefore, the position is in line with the majority of behavior. Furthermore, his position argues that having kids is what society wants and needs. And that laws should incentivize the good of society. He (a Harvard lawyer) argues that the laws aren't perfect -- and don't have to be -- they should just do what is best for the majority of people -- then they get modified or other laws go into effect to account for the problems associated with some laws. So the debate went whether marriage should be allowed at all -- I argued that companies give benefits to spouses and that's discriminatory against the 1% asexual and the 10% who never marry. He argued that there isn't an equivalent for such individuals and the law has nothing to do with it. I argued that companies give money (at least, often, in the form of insurance payment and benefits) to spouses and not to gay individuals -- giving money to such people is private business and not the place of government. I argued that allowing gay marriage affords such privilege to married people and an amount similar to what is paid for partners should be given to unmarried people. But, he's right, that's supposedly "private business" rather than the government's statement.
Anyway, I didn't realize that I'd have to run when starting this post. My thoughts will be continued. Your thoughts are welcomed and encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
relpying this as a second for the separation of church and state. I do understand why the policies were implimented in the past, but our changing society is outpacing the ability for government and business to keep up. I do believe there should be a legally binding contract between people that goes along with marriage, but it should not be involved in what is by all accounts a primarily religeous institution. Then again, I'm for outlawing all marriage as well as mandatory sterilization, but that's just me.
I think marriage should be outlawed...and I am married. Not in church, of course, much to my mother's dismay. And Steve, if your mother is anything like mine, (and I have a sneaking suspicion she is), well then you know how I'm seen in the family. As per your brother's little bourde...well, I did the same this year by accident. My parents' reactions were what more or less they have always been when they have known about my associations: "As long as it's not you. They can do what they like, she's a nice girl." Sweet Heaven. I feel horribly for what her family is doing. But it is always the ones we love that hurt us most, isn't it?
Post a Comment