Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Proposition 8

Proposition 8 has lead to very controversial, sometimes heated discussions. One side argues it’s not within the hands of the law to legislate morality, while the other says that the right to keep marriage between a man and a woman was already decided between the people of California, and we must respect democracy. My question is, what are we arguing about? What is the big deal about marriage?

Society has a literal and clear moral obligation to protect the rights of marriage to be held strictly between a man and a woman.  This is not simply the protection of marriage in the state of California for this generation, but this decision will affect this nation and others for decades, if not longer. The family was built upon the idea that a man and a woman were biologically, emotionally and psychologically built to balance one another and procreate.

Studies have shown that in parenting, the mother tends to focus on more immediate well-being of the children while the father is more apt to show and act in concern for the child’s long-term well-being. While both of these can be accomplished with just one influence, this balance is the key to good adjustment in children’s growing and ability to adjust. Mothers accomplish this by staying with their children and helping them learn every day, while fathers are able to work and earn money so that the family can grow and prosper as a whole, giving the child good resources for the things they will need. But as children are taken to day cares and neighbor’s homes to be reared, they lose the influence of the mother’s emotional investment in their child’s immediate well-being, and adjustment is threatened simply by the mother’s lack of presence. Simply stated, the child is better off with the mother at home tending to the immediate day-to-day needs of her family.

Marriage has been recognized as the union of a man and a woman, bound by civil laws to live and work together and build a family and home. However, as a society we have redefined how we see this all-important issue. Marriage is seen as a more flippant and passive issue, a union that can be made or broken on a whim with no fault and under any circumstances. Throughout the years, we have failed to recognize the repercussions of these decisions. But first, how did marriage (and therefore, family) go from the most important institution in society to the one looked upon with the most flexibility? In American, we have gone through a very systematic and specific chain of events to get from one to the other.

Being a system made of changeable parts (its citizens), society as a whole is made to be naturally evolving based on its citizens’ actions. Going on the assumption that people will always look towards their and others’ best interests, we can safely say that these changes will lean towards being good, specifically on the economic side. As the financial situation becomes better, people start to have higher standards of living. This directs people to have a stronger focus on individual satisfaction. When the individual becomes the focus (as has happened in America, we are intensely individualistic), it leads people to have higher expectations for their marriages to obtain this “greater personal happiness.” When these expectations are not met, people are more willing to sue for divorce. This puts more pressure on courts who in the past had not allowed much room for separations, and with so many people wanting to be cut loose from their partners, divorce courts will ease the laws and more people will get divorced, causing marriage to eventually be seen as a contract that is easy to enter into and easy to escape. In situations of abuse, divorce should of course be considered as an option, but as a society, we are not willing to work out our smaller differences for the sake of our children.

So what does this say about Prop 8 - how does this tie in to homosexual marriages? I think it is important to realize that the importance of marriage has changed significantly because of our shift into an individualistic society. People may say, this is good, it is natural for society to evolve based on its needs and the collective voice of the people, do what you need to be happy. What we fail to mention here is our children. They are our future, and as such, we have a very high moral obligation to do everything we can to make their lives as potentially successful as we can. And the fact of the matter is, as Americans, we do not care about what happens to them. We are highly focused on our personal freedoms and well-being that we forget about the most important part of life – raising up a good generation of people who are socially able to handle decisions and look at situations from a solid standpoint. But as I’ve illustrated in the above chain of reaction, we are willing to conform to changes that may or may not be what’s best for the future. Over and over, statistics show that divorce and instability is not good for children, for it leads them down a path of uncertainty and confusion. Children need stable adults who are willing to guide them in direct and clear ways of living.

It is absolutely best for children to have a mother and a father. We are made to work together, to balance each other, and voting yes on prop 8 will be the first step to showing that this is a serious issue and must be dealt with very carefully. This isn’t about making sexual orientation more acceptable or making it easier for homosexual couples to gain rights that come through marriage. This is about making sure we protect this fundamental institution that was designed for the benefit of our children and for the people as a whole, to work together and function in healthy and progressive ways.


  1. While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.

    If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.

    As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.

    The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.

    The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.

    The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.

    What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.

    More here

  2. Do you know how much it hurts me to read something that someone who supposedly loves me so much say that the love I will have for my future gay spouse is not moral, will corrupt my future children, and will degrade the moral fiber of my home country?

    Do you know how hard it is to feel the horrible influence the supposed church of Christ has dealt out when it comes to their hatred of gays?

    I hope one day you'll (along with all those who have fought against Prop-8) realize the horrible misconceptions of your beliefs, and how much they've hurt those you supposedly care for.

    I am not less of a human being because I am gay, so do not treat me like I am. I am not a second class citizen in this nation because I am gay, so do not treat me like I am. And, last of all, our creator does not love me less, or disapprove my being gay, so do not treat me like he does.


    The person who held you while you cried, baked cookies with you when we lived in the same apartment complex, and shared Panda Express with you every Wednesday night