Since BoB (whoever that is) has complained about gay marriage and abortion being permitted if a Democrat were to enter the White House, I'm going to put down my thoughts on these subjects.
Be warned: these are tertium quid. If you can't handle an opinion that doesn't espouse one of the for or against opinions, don't read on.
And again: ad hominem attacks are not welcome on my weblog; I don't care whose side you take or what your opinion is. I have an IP ban. If you can't control yourself, ask me about it -- I'll be more reasonable with someone who knows they can't control themselves on a subject and asks to be banned than I will be with someone who just starts randomly flaming people. But if you're that out of control on these topics, perhaps you should consider stepping back from the computer and hitting yourself in the head with a frying pan.
Repeatedly.
Anyway. On gay marriage.
Marriage is a religious ceremony that is defined by the church, the Bible, and God. Very simple. It's the coming together of a man and a woman -- yes, a man and a woman -- for life. Divorce for any grounds other than adultery is ... well, adultery.
A civil union is a state-sponsored ceremony which defines the coming together of two people. They live together; they are considered a couple. Dissolution is permissible under the law.
Marriage and civil unions are different.
If a gay couple, male or female, engage in sexual relations, it is a sin. It is not blasphemy; I'm pretty sure it's only blaspheming if they mention God in their wedding vows.
But here's the kicker: marriage is a religious ceremony. That's what makes it different from a civil union.
Which is exactly why the state shouldn't be recognizing marriage at all. Period. Whether between two men, two women, or a man and a woman -- the state has no business involving itself in marriage. Religion hasn't had business involving itself in civil affairs since Jesus died.
As for abortion:
Don't be confused by the arguments people put forward. It's not about religious issues. It's not about the safety of the mothers. It's not about rape, not about abstinence, and it's sure as heck not about women's rights.
Very simply, it all revolves around one single question: Is a fetus a human being or not?
If a fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder. If a fetus is not a human being, then abortion is a surgical procedure not dissimilar to cancer treatment.
The thing is that this central issue cannot, should not, be decided by our government. It can't even be addressed -- it's a philosophical and moral issue that faces anyone who is considering an abortion. The question is fundamental to our law, but must not be restricted to our lawmakers to decide. Philosophical issues are, like religion, left in the hands of the individual, not the state.
I'm not going to put forth solutions. I think that you're bright people and could easily think of ways to determine an individual's beliefs on whether a fetus is a human being or not. An interesting dilemma is how you'd handle pregnant women, especially young and possibly single ones.
But it's something that must be left to each person to decide for themselves, without the judgment or condemnation that so often comes with the choice to have an abortion. If your religion, conscience, parent, guardian, mentor convinces you that abortion is baby-killing, then so be it: don't have an abortion. But it's not your right to force your opinion on anyone else, whether by legal, civil, or vigilante methods. And in the same way, if you believe that a fetus is not a human being, then feel free to voice your opinion, but don't assume that others will necessarily subscribe to it.
-David
|
