Trying to bring an edge to my writing

[greybeta]

I'm starting to believe that I'm too nice to be an opinion writer...I can't choose a side for very long and I digress way too much.

Forgive me for lapsing into first person on this one. I couldn't help myself. I will have plenty of time to change this article accordingly to my criticism.

I know, I should google more stuff to check my facts but I'm a bit behind on some other stuff right now. In regards to SQ711, I live in Oklahoma.

Flames are welcome.

---

In defense of marriage
Daniel Tu

State Question 711 preserves the sanctity of marriage against the left wing social revolution. Adding Section 35 to Article 2, SQ711 defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. Other states’ same-sex marriages become invalid in Oklahoma, and people who are not married cannot receive the benefits of marriage. It also makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.

What do those who oppose SQ711 say? There is no need to explicitly define marriage. I wish I could agree with them, but I cannot when a fundamental part of humanity is being taken for granted. Jesus Christ said in Mark 10:6-9, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” There’s a balance to nature that we must choose to maintain.

Notably, the Chinese believe in the philosophy of the yin and the yang. The yin is dark, cold, and female. The yang is light, hot, and male. So the yin and the yang oppose each other to keep the world in equilibrium. Pairing yin with yin or yang with yang upsets this delicate balance, yet homosexuality promotes doing just that. Don’t get me wrong, I do not advocate hate crimes against gays or lesbians. Rather, I see homosexuality as a perversion of nature.

Once we accept same-sex marriages, must we not also accept teaching same-sex marriages as normal? Look at our current culture. Coming out stories fill television shows and Internet ads. Biology claims that homosexuals are naturally inclined to be attracted to people of the same sex rather than of the opposite sex. We should accept people for who they are. The way somebody chooses his or her significant other is a personal decision that should be respected. We shouldn’t outlaw homosexuality because that would disregard America’s passion for equality.

People are people. If pricked, we all bleed. If the homosexual community is adamant on getting the same rights given to married couples, then they should work on getting civil unions. As I understand it, when one half of a same-sex couple gets hurt in a car wreck, the hospital denies visiting rights to his or her significant other. Civil unions could give them these kinds of rights without overstepping the bounds of marriage.

Conservatives preserve the status quo, so they will defend the traditions that have built our society. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman, so same-sex marriages should be banned. That’s the way it’s always been taught and always should be taught. In order to protect our sacred traditions, vote yes for State Question 711.

Comments

[wundergeek.livejournal.com]

It is not humanly possible for me to disagree with you more. But I don't have time to drag out my Bible and proove why. So my disagreement in a nutshell:

The Bible states explicitly that God is love. For that matter, Jesus doesn't say ONE WORD about homosexuality. Seriously. Try and find something actually out of Jesus' mouth. So you won't win the argument on those grounds.

I can't believe that God works that way. "I love everyone, but not the fags" is unconscionable to me.

...bah. I can do so much better.

I beg to disagree...

[renough.livejournal.com]

God doesn't say He doesn't love them, He says what they are doing is abominable. They are grouped with idolators, adulterers, theives, drunkards, extortioners... etc, in the group that is said to not enter into the kingdom of Heaven if they continue in their ways. (1 Cor 6:9)

Let's get technical here. Christ is part of the trinity. Three in one. God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible is God Breathed and inspired. What is in there, God wanted in there. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3:16-17) Therefore, everything in there, Christ wanted in there.

So you can't say that Christ doesn't agree with homosexuality. Now, yes, He does love those that practice it, but it doesn't please Him they they still do. It's the whole, "love the sinner, not the sin" issue. He didn't come to condemn the world, but to free it. And when His message calls for us to turn from sins and have full faith/relationship with Him, then that is what He wants. He doesn't want us to keep doing the same sinful things we have been doing and say, "Oh yeah J-man, I'm doing fine. I believe in You. I'll just keep doing my own thing."

To redirect to D2: Good job sticking with a topic bro. I feel like I wasn't led down a winding path this time. ;)

Re: I beg to disagree...

[tu-oboe-girl.livejournal.com]

Well said, Ryan. I completely agree.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

God loves everyone.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Jesus doesn't specifically say anything against homosexuality. However, I believe he makes it clear that marriage should be between male and female (from the quote in my article).

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

finally.

I think you will have people arguing with WHAT you say instead of HOW you say it, which is a vast improvement.

I like how you first quote the bible then you quote Chinese philosophy. It gives a little bit of freshness to this tired old debate.

You state your opinion forcefully. You stayed on topic with this "State Question 711." This is the first time I have seen you not only state your own opinion clearly, but also the first time I have seen you stay on topic.

Keep up the good work, and don't get discouraged if people disagree with you, it only means your writing has improved enough that they can figure out what the hell you are talking about.

The only thing I can see that you might want to fix is the part at the bottom where you're not sure if people in civil unions can visit each other in hospitals. Research that and find out if it's true.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Well if edt says this writing is clear, then it's clear :). I've still got quite a ways to go before I become a good writer (I believe there's a difference between being able to write good articles and being a good writer).

This time around, I'll have plenty of time to do the homework on my article.

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

Research the visiting hospital parts; that actually varies from staff person to staff person at hospitals. You might also look into whether civil unions affect the ability to inherit property from one another; spouses can automatically inherit property from a deceased spouse whether there's a will or not; unmarried couples cannot, and wills are often overturned by a gay person's family to prevent the parent from inheriting. What other legal rights does a civil union in your area grant? If your position is that civil unions grant the same rights as marriage, what legal rights does marriage grant, and how are civil unions comparable?

You may also want to include a statement about whether civil unions should be available to heterosexual couples; if so, how does that affect the sanctity of marriage?

[renough.livejournal.com]

From what I understand, a quick way to circumvent that (land transfer) is to give it as a 'gift' before one dies. That way, as long as the deed what physically given to the 2nd party before the 1st party's death, then it is legally binding in ownership to the 2nd party...

...at least that's what my law class taught me.

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

True. But there are tax consequences for that (I think you can only gift up to $10,000 tax free; but then, I skipped most of my tax law classes). You can also co-title items requiring title (cars, homes, IRA's), but both these require a level of planning that may not have occured at the time of death, especially if sudden. But yeah, solutions, just not automatic ones.

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

You cannot co-title an IRA. The "I" stands for "Individual" and the IRS gets really pissed if you forget that. :)

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

That's a good idea. I'll encourage my aunt that if she is ever about to be in a fatal accident of some sort, she should give her possessions to her partner as a gift just before it happens.

[renough.livejournal.com]

I never said it was a fix all solution... Sheesh, I'm just trying to help out. No need to jump down my throat.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

It isn't a solution at all.

The fact is that in cases like this, families have challenged the "gift," and won in court, thereby depriving the deceased of such a fundamental thing as being able to designate to whom their estate and/or belongings pass.

Except in extreme cases (e.g. Anna Nicole Smith), families can be almost guaranteed that any challenge to property passing to one's spouse is destined to fail.

But transfers accomplished through wills, gifts made during fatal illness, &c. are very commonly overturned in favor of the blood relatives, rather than the chosen partner.

So not only is it unrealistic to say "give it to your partner as a gift," because death can come suddenly and unexpectedly, it is also unrealistic to advocate any transfer other than at fair market value, because it is likely to be overturned in court should the family challenge the transfer.

You propose a simple solution to a complex problem, and as in the majority of such cases, the simple solution is unsatisfactory.

[renough.livejournal.com]

Well, when you mix someone who is taking a course in business law with someone who just wants to help how they can... you get me. I'm not saying I know everything, I was just saying what I know about the laws of 'gifts.' I am even prosecuting in a mock trial dealing with said issue of giving a gift post mortem.

All I'm saying is that I'm just trying to help with what little knowledge I have of the law. No reason to belittle me for it.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

You were the one who stepped up with a suggested solution apparently without doing your research.

When you talk about a subject you don't know about, you should expect to be informed by those who do.

Don't take this personally. I'm not trying to belittle you personally. I'm pointing out to you the flaws in your argument - many of which are well-tread ground - so that you can refine your views, and if the facts warrant, change your position. At the very least, you will be prepared to have a more informed discussion on the subject.

Granted, my patience is a little short on the subject, precisely because I see so many people make the same arguments you made. I will try to be less irritable.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

These are all good questions...I'll try to find a way to incorporate them into my article.

Extending civil unions to heterosexual couples...this makes a lot of sense to me. Before that, though, I do need to define what rights a marriage grants in my area.

[renough.livejournal.com]

...by the by, I wanted to let you know that I appreciate that you are standing up for what you believe in. It isn't popular by any means in today's society, and expect to have some fairly hateful responses to this, but remember:

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." - John 15:18-19

Be strong bro.

-R

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the encouragement :).

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

I have a problem here, because I do not know how this works in the Usa, so I do not know if it works the same there as it does in the Netherlands. But in the Netherlands there is a distincion between church marriage and Civil marriage, you get al the benifits from the law with the civil marriage, and you get all the spirituel, religous benifits from marriage by church in order to have both here you must marry twice once in church and once in the city hall. church and state are seperate. and only the name is the same. So the only difference I can spot is that you object to the name used?

but names have always different meanings, and the difference between the marriage by state and church are effident, but if the state calls it union "marraige" the gays' "civil union" would have to be called the same way because it confers the same benifits for the civil law.

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

I don't agree but I respect your opinion, but can't it just be chalked up to the effect of Babel? God knows what's meant by the words and the christians who oppose it is do to, is that not what is important.


And furthermore I believe that most people will start to call civil union marriage in due of time because of human psychology. But then again I'm never all that interested in how it's called, more in what it does. so for me it's on all acounts a non-issue.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Babel...that's an interesting way to look at it.

Perhaps others will call civil unions marriage, but I never will. It sounds like I'm nitpicking here, but I've got to draw the line somewhere.

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

Same Babel thing, the words means something else to you then to them so you use a different word.

And I think it's your line to draw how you call things even if somebody else calls it different

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

The Dutch have an interesting way of doing things.

What's in a name? A lot. Is it asinine to worry about whether it's "marriage" or "civil union"? Psychologically, it makes a big difference.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this, but to allow gay marriage would be putting it on the same footing with a normal marriage. I don't think that should be the case.

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

Yeah we're a weird bunch, but strangly enough most of our ideas work. (well... for us anyway)

reacted to the post you deleted so for your answer look one up (like this one better though, more forcefull, less both sides)

[aritei.livejournal.com]

I consider myself a liberal for the most part, and a Christian as well. I've grown so tolerant of homosexuals that for awhile, I started thinking that gay marriage was acceptable. Now I am a strong proponent of civil unions, and marriages if that particular church wishes to marry the couple. Obviously no church should be forced to marry a homosexual couple, but I imagine there are many that would, gladly.

I just recently started reading some Christian apologetic arguments and see where my thoughts went wrong. In a society where one view is so pervasive, it's easy to get caught up in PC-ness, which softens language, making it more acceptable to the masses. Thanks for sharing your views.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

It was tough, but I have to put my foot down on PC somewhere.

[solamasa.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with being "PC". This has to do with promulgation of basic equality. Basic equality is a fundamental human right. "Political correctness" is essentially about neutering language; the above article, however, is about supporting institutionally-sponsored bigotry, presented with a sugar coating.

Only allowing civil unions is cogently discriminatory: it is clearly stating that the people involved in same-sex couples are second-class citizens, not worthy to receive all the rights of their peers.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that civil unions should be given less legal rights than marriages. I am saying that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman.

Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Sure, but that doesn't mean I want to actively make homosexuals' lives living hells because of a personal decision they made.

[solamasa.livejournal.com]

The assertion that you aren't seeking to curtail the rights of gays and lesbians seems rather disingenuous.

To wit, you ask your readers to vote yes for State Question No. 711, which would first define marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman and then would prohibit giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married.

So do you truly believe that same-sex couples seeking a civil union should be afforded the same rights as a married couple as you claim here, or do you support denying them those rights? Unless I'm missing something fundamental here, these are clearly mutually exclusive viewpoints.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

To wit, you ask your readers to vote yes for State Question No. 711, which would first define marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman and then would prohibit giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married.

Actually, this is a pretty big flaw in my reasoning. I would support another state question to amend that section so that civil unions could enjoy the same legal rights.

I'm of the opinion that it's really stupid for the government to outlaw the coupling of homosexuals. People make their own decisions on these things, and it makes it more convenient for the government to treat them as couples.

Having said that, I am still against teaching homosexuality as something "normal".

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

You are arguing twice from religious/mystical premises, and then giving the real-world complications relatively short shrift.

Using a theological basis for your argument is only going to give your argument strength with people who already believe as you do. That's a somewhat less than compelling argument. In fact, it really isn't an argument, because it has no weight at all with people who disagree with you. It is more a statement of position.

Assume your audience is predisposed to reject any biblical prohibition.

Assume your audience is predisposed to reject eastern mysticism.

Now, why is homosexual marriage dangerous to society?

If you cannot write from that position, you are almost literally preaching to the choir.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

This is some good food for thought whenever I get to revising my article.

[renough.livejournal.com]

A statement of position, or a statement of opinion? Both perhaps, but he is writing for the opinion section. Your opinion shouldn't sway on whether or not the people hearing the matter are going to believe you or not.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

Why state an opinion if not to influence the thinking of others?

People of power and celebrity can sway people to consider their opinion merely on the strength of their name.

The rest of us have to rely on the strength and clear and compelling expression of our reasoning.

[renough.livejournal.com]

Sometimes you just have to let people know where you stand and not care if they totally disagree with you. Some opinions can't (and shouldn't) be watered down to please the opposition.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

There is value in manifestos, great and small, I agree. The very act of putting one's thoughts, opinions, and principles into words is generally beneficial to the person doing it.

But the point of the article, as revealed by the closing statement, is to influence people to vote a specific way. In fact, that vote is the place for greybeta to make his stand. Previous to that, if he isn't going to try to win converts (or at least sympathy) to his way of thinking, he is just engaging in a bit of egoism.

Winning the minds of others requires a compelling argument that will win over the undecided, and possibly even convert those of an opposing view.

The goal is the thing here, and so far as I can tell the goal is to influence people.

Also, you may well not be aware, so maybe this will illuminate the situation some. When greybeta and I first made contact, he was clear that he was following my journal because of some of my more thoughtfully written pieces. He expressed that he was trying to tighten up and improve his own writing. I'm not trying to be harsh on him or tear down his efforts. I am more fulfilling the "terms" of our friendship by offering him advice/perspectives that he should address if he is to become the formidable writer I think he is capable of being.

I don't think I am a great writer, but I think I write well when I put my mind to it. He's going to be a far better writer than I am, but as long as I can offer assistance, I will.

I hope that perspective helps me seem like less of an intrusive jerk. :)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I appreciate honest comments. I'm kind of a demanding LJ writer...I expect my readers to improve my writing.

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

I think this is a tight little essay, but I think your argument has a problem.

Here's the problem, Chief.

Most of the statutes that affect relations like who can visit whom, who can inherit, who can testify, etc. (essentially, the equal protection argument) talk about "spouses." In order to make civil unions equal, you'd need to do one of two things - revise every statute that describes the rights and privileges of a "spouse" or "husband" or "wife" to include "or civil unionee" (or whatever the hell term we use) or define "civil unionee" in the statute as "having the same rights as a spouse" - which means that the only difference would be a word.

Now, there were, at last count, over a thousand substantive rights in the US Code that directly related to whether the individuals were "married" or not.

The reason the Mass Supremes ruled the way they did is because of the enormous number of rights that flow from the status of "married," and it would be almost impossible to search and replace them all. They denied the legislature's request to make the term "civil unions" because of the enormity of this task.

I also quibble with the "against nature" argument. 10% of the population is gay. 10-20% of the population is left-handed. Am I against nature? Gay people have existed since time immemorial; one does not outlaw something that doesn't happen. I have a hard time understanding how a characteristic that has cropped up in every human society can possibly be "against nature." It might be immoral, as murder is, or taboo, as homosexuality is, but how can it be "unnatural?"

Furthermore, it is seldom true that when one excludes a class of persons from a contractual relationship, as marriage is, that another, alternate contractual relationship, is just as good. If the Supreme Court found no legitmate government interest in amending a state constitution to outlaw "special" rights for homosexuals, how can excluding them from literally more than a thousand rights (until you correct the state statutes to include "civil unions") reflect a legitimate government interest?

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Too bad we don't have the laws in Word document format. Then we could do some kind of global find and replace to replace "spouse" with "spouse or civil unionee".

Being left-handed probably wasn't the best example to use with me, since it's sort of a curse in Vietnamese culture to be left handed. However, I understand where you are coming from. I know homosexuality existed before Jesus Christ ever walked this Earth. So did stealing and the rest of evils that plague humanity.

I believe homosexuality is unnatural in that it goes against the balance of nature. There's something aesthetic about male-female relationships, and it's simply not there in same-sex relationships.

I agree that it's illogical for the government to not to want to simplify administrative matters. But, I think we need to think about the social ramifications before doing so.

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

Hm. So the law should reflect your aestheic opinion. That's a curious argument. :)

Actually, I think my comparision between left-handedness and homosexuality is made more valid by your cultural prejudice. I mean I didn't choose to be left-handed, and it's not that huge a handicap - it just bugs you.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about the whole argument that people can't choose to be homosexual. I've talked to my pre-med roommate about this and he comes up with some solid arguments from the biology side. Even if people are biologically inclined to be homosexual, it doesn't seem natural to espouse a philosophy that would severely hamper mankind's future posterity.

Therein lies the difference between left-handedness and homosexuality. If everyone were left-handed, the humanity would still go on. If everyone were homosexual, humanity would be in trouble. (Take this with a grain of salt if you wish)