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

[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)