Trying to bring an edge to my writing
Oct. 12th, 2004 02:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaI'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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 01:36 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 01:40 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 02:17 pm (UTC)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.