If the denial to gay and lesbian people of the right to marry is based upon a PERCEIVED threat to children – it must then stand to reason that those people who are ACTUALLY a threat to children, or who have who have been found GUILTY of ACTUAL child abuse, ought have their right to marry revoked.
In my opinion, if you take the Christian right’s arguments against marriage equality to their logical conclusion, then the right to marriage can be revoked on many levels. For example, a couple of old chestnuts… Claim – Marriage is about procreation. Logical conclusion – non-productive consummation of marriage is grounds for annulment of that marriage, as they have done damage to the institution as a conduit for procreation… another… Claim – The love between a man and a woman is special/sacred and must be treated as such. Logical Conclusion – Those found guilty of spousal abuse ought have their right to marry revoked, as they have done damage to the institution as a special/sacred loving union.
Religious rightists railing against marriage equality between hetero and homosexual people are not really interested in protecting’ marriage, nor are they really interested in protecting children, nor are they really interested in protecting the wellbeing of those in marriage. They are by their words, coupled by their lack of action in actually doing what they say they are defending, are simply protecting and defending their own ideology and positions of power.
The institution of marriage, of itself, does not create nor protect children, it does not protect those in a marriage from each other, nor does it elevate one class of couple’s love above another’s – for love simply is… The quality of, relevance of, protectiveness of, and the loving and nurturing nature of the institution of marriage can only be generated in the hearts and minds of those involved in such relationships. Such virtues are not the sole preserve of one class of person or couple, are not found in greater or lesser quantities in straight, gay, bi, or asexual people – but are intrinsic to individuals, and are amplified when coupled through love.
By that logic, I would say no one should be able to have children at all… After all we all have the potential right?
I agree with you completely!!!
Hi Terra
An ability to have children (procreate) is purely biological, it is separate to any social constructs and institutions we fashion around our lives.
The biological imperative to procreate does not require marriage to occur. Here I differentiate biological parenting to social parenting, in essence, the difference between creating a child, and raising a child.
Gay couples may not be able to create children, but they are as fully capable in raising and protecting children as a straight couple – all the rest is politics.
I agree with that reasoning completely. Parenting is something we all have our successes and our failures in. It is fair to say that we all are equal in those potentials…
I do not believe in marriage, and will never marry. I however, have two beautiful children, with a wonderful man.
Yes, happiness is found in the heart, not through a piece of paper.
Health and happiness to you and your family.
Why be against marriage, it’s in our nature, isn’t it?
No it isn’t… Marriage of itself is not in our nature…Coupling, and grouping together to form families or clans is in our nature…Marriage is simply a legal mechanism to give a kind of recognition, to apply laws, and to grant specific rights to these couplings, families, or clans.
Family groups are formed for mutual support and protection. Do people need a specific kind of legal recognition (marriage) to feel they are in a loving and supportive environment? Government institutions and religious institutions appear to need a specific and ordered form of human grouping, upon which they confer specific rights, and degrees of exclusivity. Social custom has (over generations) applied layers of expectation on top of those laws and religious rites.
I am not against marriage per-se… I am against its exclusivity, what it has become, and how it is used.
It has long been a weapon used against women, people of differening races, religions or denominations, (and more recently) against homosexual and transgendered people.
In my opinion, if marriage is used as it was once intended to be used for, it would be a more popular aspect of human life… rather than an expected (or imposed) rite of passage in society.
In modern society it would be accessible to couples (of any gender) who have achieved a specific age, and are not related by blood. Laws pertaining to marries partners would be equal to both parties. Laws pertaining to child protection would not be dependent on any gender differences or similarities in the couple, family, or clan, and there would (in time) be a recognition that it is not always that one specific family configuration is best for all children – but that it takes a willingness to take care of, and protexct children… and that willingness is not a gender-specific, nor is it specific to any specific gender-configured family.
Rights and freedoms are human inventions, as is the society where these inventions exist. Rights and freedoms co-exist. Where there is a right, invariably, there is a matching freedom to exercise that right or not to.
According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right; and as a right (in a modern democracy) it comes with the freedom of people to choose to exercise that right to marry a person of their choosing, and the freedom of people to choose not to exercise that right to marry at all.
To deny a person (or group) a right that is enjoyed by most other people, is to also deny them their freedom to choose…
the denial of any rights and the denial of any associated freedom – that is tyranny…