The Sanctity Of Marriage...
Today at lunch, Thaddeus, Rickey, and I had a respectful, yet thought-provoking conversation on politics. I have plenty of opinions, but I've tried my best to keep them educated. It's difficult to discuss a subject with someone who doesn't have the knowledge on a particular subject, nor the desire to gain that knowledge, yet insists on their point of view.
The topic of gay marriage was brought up.
Let's be clear: I don't have a problem with a man loving another man, or two women who want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's not my decision, nor is it my right to tell them how to feel, or that they're wrong for doing so.
I believe that a gay or lesbian couple, if they so choose to be bonded together for life, should have the same rights as any married heterosexual couple in the country.
But here's the catch: I don't think they should be allowed to be married.
Hear me out -- please.
The history of marriage goes back centuries, some may argue to the days of Adam & Eve, but in the country we live in, we need not go further back than the year 1563 for the definition of marriage we're familiar with today.
Here's a very brief history lesson.
Marriage used to contain (and for some countries, still does) arranged marriages, whereby the bride and groom are 'set-up', often without their consent. Historically, proxy marriages were commonplace, where one party need not be present during the wedding. Believe it or not, there are four states in the
But when our country was founded, the definition of marriage was derived from the 1563 meeting of the Council of Trent, where a couple must be married in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. At this point, marriage also saved men and women from being sinful, as well as helped seal bloodlines.
My point is that marriage is an extension of the church. Unfortunately, homosexuality is forbidden by that very same church. In order to maintain credibility within, we cannot allow homosexuals to be married through the church.
The solution to this is not new. Civil Unions are the perfect answer. Give them the same rights and privileges as any heterosexual couple, but respect the church for disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle.
It's not perfect. There are holes in my argument. I could name you several instances whereby my argument is hypocritical. What about atheists who choose to marry? Shouldn't they not be allowed to marry? Unfortunately, under the rules we currently have in place, they're within the law. No solution is easy or foolproof.
My opinion isn't homophobic, nor is it anti-gay. I respect their feelings, because I want everyone to respect mine, but I'm trying to reach some sort of compromise between two sides who won't give in to one another, nor should they.
Stand for your principles. Homosexuals have to be true to themselves. They want the rights they deserve, while the religious right has beliefs they are obligated to, and shouldn't be asked to compromise how they feel. At that point, thinking outside the box becomes necessary, and a mutual disagreement reached.
Civil Unions should satisfy all parties involved, because homosexuals get the rights they deserve, while the religious right protects the sanctity of marriage. The only ones upset will be the radicals on both sides who want to see their agenda pushed to the limit, with no regard to others.
Is it perfect? Does it satisfy all concerns?
No. It can't. It won't. But it's a start.
