“My commission from God is to deliver the good news of salvation to you, not to cram it down your throat. What you do with that news, how you address your salvation, is between you and your creator. By comparison, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. If you try, all you’ll succeed in doing is drowning the horse.”
…I’ve always tried to live by this. I mean, who am I to say what’s right or good for someone not in my shoes? Who am I to try and force my beliefs on others, either at the ballot box or otherwise? Who am I to try putting limits on love, or who can and can’t be in love?
Right now, I’m attempting to marry (okay, pun half-intended!) this stance to the wider debate regarding marriage equality. Personally, I believe in biblical teachings on the matter; that marriage is a solemn union between a man and a woman. That’s the way we got here, isn’t it, through a relationship between members of the opposite gender? I won’t however, seek to infringe upon someone else’s right to their own belief on the matter, or limit or deny their equal protections under the laws of the land because of it.
My contemplations of the question have brought up an interesting theory! I have heard, among the many arguments against marriage equality, one referred to as the “slippery slope” argument. It posits that, if we allow same-sex marriage, that it would lead to people wanting to legally marry their siblings, their beloved pets, etceteras. Now, we could go down several roads of applicability on this one, including the degradation of traditional family values, the evolving definition of relationships, and on and on, ad nauseum. Well, I won’t. (You can breathe out now…)
Instead, I’m going to posit a similar, yet entirely more likely series of “connect the dots” questions and thoughts:
- Firstly, what main justification do we use to legalize same-sex marriage? Which freedom do we apply?
- Then, assuming that we DO declare it fully-recognized by law, might another interest seek to have THEIR marriage(s) deemed legal, such as oh, say…Muslims? In the Muslim faith, it is permissible for a man to have more than one wife, as long as the man is able to support her. How can we deny Muslims, under Freedom of Religion protections in the U.S. Constitution, the right to marry more than one wife, when we have legalized same-gender marriage?
- If Muslims are successful in this, then we see the legalization of polygamy. Not only would this work for Muslims, but then LDS adherents would be able to resume polygamist practices with the full protections of the law. (Makes one wonder just WHY the Mormons are so against this, as it would be a means to an end…)
- This would then allow the reverse to also be legal: a woman would be able to marry multiple husbands. She MUST be able to by this point, otherwise it would constitute gender discrimination!
See where I’m going with this? Keep in mind folks, that there are several different flavors of polyamory, and the idea that there are financial implications to this question, both positive and negative, to such institutions as Social Security, healthcare, education…the list is ginormous! These are just some of the questions I find myself mulling over in my quest to better understand both sides of this hot-potato issue…
______________________________
The first in the “Gay Agenda” series. (I’ve learned a LOT since this was written, with some views having gone through extensive evaluation!)
The Cybersattva 
Let me preface this comment by saying you sound like a reasonable individual who isn’t actually anti-gay. Which is pretty rare, considering that most people who are against gay marriage consistently claim they aren’t anti-gay. So kudos to you. On to my points.
First, the slippery slope theory is, in most applications, absolute nonsense.
Second, I don’t see any logical reason why incestuous marriage should be illegal. I was thinking about incest one day (disclaimer: philosophically, not because I was considering it), and I realized that I couldn’t actually think of one logical reason why it’s immoral (religious teachings don’t count). Evolutionary psychology dictates that humans find incest disgusting and wrong because it’s genetically harmful. Now, I don’t know if that’s accurate, but it’s a sensible explanation.
Third, marriage between two consenting adults is in no way comparable to marrying a beloved pet. Consenting would be the keyword there. As long as presumably rational agents agree and decide to marry, I’m okay with it. That would preclude marrying young children and teens.
Fourth, I honestly don’t see an issue with polygamy. I wouldn’t participate, because I think it’d be a fairly messy proposition, but why shouldn’t it exist? As long as comprehensive laws are drafted dealing with divorce and custody rights, et al, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be legal. Yeah, it is and would be immensely complicated, but should something be illegal because the logistics are difficult to work out? I think that’s extremely unethical.
Fifth, you have a fatal flaw in the logic of your first question (about the justification of same-sex marriage). What’s the justification for preventing same-sex marriage? When seeking to eliminate freedom, the burden of justification is on those removing the freedoms. Just because homosexuality isn’t legal in many places doesn’t mean it’s right. It’s illegal for deep-seated religious reasons. And that’s no true justification.
First, please allow me to say….wow! I didn’t anticipate that any of my blog post would garner this quick a reply! Thank you for taking an interest and reading my musings! As for my stance on LGBT issues, I am not anti-gay. As a matter of fact, I have several close gay and lesbian friends, and they’re all fantastic, dynamic individuals. What I’m actually trying to accomplish is to gain a better personal understanding of the whole Marriage Equality debate, so that I can make an honest, well-informed decision regarding my own stance on the matter. Right now, I am actually FOR gay marriage. As my blog states, I don’t feel that it is my charge to force my religious mores on others at the ballot box, or otherwise.
I agree, the “slippery slope” argument as posited by your everyday, mainstream, Petra-listening, praise and worship cafeteria Christian is pure bovine scatology.
I have to respectfully disagree with your second point, you even hit the nail on the head. Genetics. If you think that the healthcare system is broken now, just wait until thousands of children with severe defects are brought into the world through marriages without the consideration of consanguinuity. If you’d like to shoulder that bill, that’s all well and good.
Third point, TOTALLY agree. That’s why the “slippery slope” argument falls flat on it’s face.
Fourth point has more to do with the impact on social programs such as Social Security, healthcare, etceteras. Some would see pluses, others more burdens. Those are the questions that need to be addressed…
Finally, that “fatal flaw” idea. The sentence was meant as a starting point, not questioning why we should legalize it. You’re absolutely right otherwise. What IS the realistic justification for not deeming same-sex marriages fully recognized and protected under U.S. law? (You tell me!)
Haha I like to search for the tags that interest me, and this issue fascinates (and angers) me. And I said that you seem perfectly reasonable and I appreciate that.
But one issue I take with your stance, or at least the questions you posed me, is that the government has no right to eliminate personal freedoms (and make no mistake, the illegality of gay marriage isn’t the lack of a right, it’s the removal of one. It’s an active moral statement) based on difficult logistics, like polygamy or potentially incest (I haven’t seen any studies about how many people would intermarry or if the number would be significant enough to cause significant problems. All logistics CAN be worked out. It’s simply a matter of social awareness.