“Arguments on these subjects are tricky to make, particularly in the rough world of politics. They touch on deep feelings, deep beliefs and thousands of years of searching for the best way to live. Gay marriage is not a simple issue of fairness for all. The obsession with defining an individual’s identity by his or her sexual desires, and putting the fulfilment of those desires above everything else, is only about 100 years old and will, I suspect, pass. The need for men and women to have children, bring them up and look after one another is much more important. So Mr Cameron should tread more carefully.”

 Charles Moore, Gay marriage is not as simple as David Cameron believes in the UK Telegraph


4 Responses to Observations

  1. It’s not a matter of defining a person by their sexual orientation. If anyone’s doing that, it’s heterosexuals who bombard the media 24 hours a day with wedding shows, ads for hamburgers that somehow require cleavage shots, Hooters restaurants and films about heterosexual romance. Frankly, I’m tired of having pictures of people’s children and spouses thrust in my face at work while I need to be completely invisible and silent and can’t even put an innocent picture up on my desk because … God forbid … I might offend someone’s religious sensibilities.

    The question is to what degree we allow people to determine their own paths to fulfillment and happiness. Marriage is a completely separate issue from adoption. Thousands of heterosexuals marry every year who have no interest in having children, have no capacity to have children or who would make lousy parents if they did have them.

    No one has come up with a coherent reason as to why the state has a moral obligation in preventing gays from enjoying a civil marriage license.

    They’re not going to marry someone of the opposite sex (would YOU marry someone predominantly attracted to their own gender?). The alternative is to force them to live as celibates or to encourage a culture of promiscuity. Perhaps if they lived on the “down low” like many married men who are found trolling for tricks in public restrooms or working for anti-gay organizations while taking young male prostitutes on European vacations (a la George Rekers), they’d have more respect?

  2. Nate says:

    No one has yet come up with a coherent reason why the state needs to be involved in the sanctioning of marriages at all. Start there and get back to me. The less involvement the state has in the personal lives of its (increasingly this is the appropriate term, rather than citizens) subjugates the better.

  3. Nate writes: “No one has yet come up with a coherent reason why the state needs to be involved in the sanctioning of marriages at all.”

    You may as well ask why the state offers any types of civil contracts at all. Why allow power-of-attorney? Why offer wills? Contractual rights and obligations clearly play a role in our relationships with others and often define the degree of our relation to them where there could be ambiguities in many situations. If someone is remarried but has children from their first marriage, who gets to the make the medical decisions if the person becomes incapacitated? The children who are blood relations or the second spouse? There’s a hierarchy the legal system looks at absent the clearly noted desires of the person in question in the form of a living will or medical power-of-attorney or some other document.

    As a Christian, surely you acknowledge that we live an in imperfect world and that disputes occur. Civil contracts prevent and alleviate some of that. That’s what marriage in the eyes of the state is: a contract.

    Look, clearly you’re not opposed to same-sex marriage out of some personal bigotry towards gays, but perhaps you just haven’t separated the legal construct from the implications of the religious sacrament? (I strongly oppose any attempt to legally coerce churches or religious organizations (even private adoption agencies) to act contrary to their values, btw.)

  4. Nate says:

    You have completely missed what I was saying. Maybe I’ll do better to ask what role the state plays in assigning power of attorney?

    The answer is very little, if any. You failed to argue for a reason the state needs to license marriages and set terms. That is as opposed to accepting whatever contract people decide works for them, rather than a generic one size fits all from the state.

    The only thing the state should do here is adjudicate, as it seems you think I was arguing against that, I’m not. That is the states function, not deciding who is married and what effect such a contract would have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: