A school in California had kindergartners sign pledge cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, to not use "anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender language or slurs." LinkWhy is sexual orientation a topic in kindergarten?! In today's society, it's possible that there's so little discipline or love in a home that hateful words and attitudes are byproducts. Thus, the classroom becomes the only place for a child to learn why being kind to one another is important. However, kindergartners aren't concerned with sexual orientation. Basic kindness doesn't require acknowledgement of sexuality. At best, boys think girls have cooties and vice-versa. Otherwise, their focus is on everything else. That's how it should be. It's about fun. Yet, we try and grow up our children too fast because we want them to be well-rounded and open-minded.
Over the years, gay marriage has populated the headlines more and more frequently. Recently, I saw a news clip where supporters were chanting, "Stop the hate!" Which made me pause: why is opposing gay marriage a form of hatred?
First, let's define words. Webster's Dictionary defines marriage: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."
How politically correct of Webster's to stick in a (2) and "traditional marriage."
Now, let's define hate: "1a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy - loathing 2: an object of hatred."
Many supporters would feel that anyone opposing gay marriage is fearful of it, closed-minded, or that they simply dislike homosexuals. What amazes me is how the simple and obvious are overlooked.
This isn't about hate. This is about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This is about having your cake and eating it, too. This shouldn't even be a discussion about sexual orientation. Webster shouldn't need to update its definition of marriage.
The Bible speaks of husbands loving their wives.
- "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" [Ephesians 5:25]
- "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." [Ephesians 5:28]
- "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." [I Peter 3:7]
- "Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them." Colossians 3:19]
- "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." [I Corinthians 7:3-5]
Seems to me that as of lately, there's a double-standard. It's perfectly acceptable to speak poorly of Christians, Republicans, or frankly anyone who disagrees with what are viewed as "mainstream ideas." Yet, when Christians voice their opinion on an issue, we are collectively or individually viewed as hateful, old-fashioned, ignorant, uneducated, radical, righteous, the religious-right, or - my personal favorite - Bible-thumpers.
When a guy tells me he's married, I see the ring on his finger, but notice he's a little flamboyant in his gestures and his clothes and hair just so...I might question whether he's married to a woman. But that's presumptuous and judging a book by the cover. What's wrong with a man or woman saying "I'm married" and instantly understanding they are wed to someone of the opposite sex like it has been for thousands of years? Why should I have to ask: "So, what's your wife...eh, husband...eh, partner's name?"
Now, if a man or woman should say, "I'm unioned" or some other phrase, what's wrong with that instantly conveying they are wed to someone of the same sex?
This seems more a case of wanting to have the benefits of traditional marriage (which are pretty much taken care of with civil unions) and not wanting to embrace civil unions to the next level. So, instead let's redefine marriage.
A triangle is a shape with 3 points, a circle has no sides and never ends, a square has four points. There's no gray, it's black and white. It's 1's and 0's. Marriage should be husband and wife...man and woman. If a man wants to wed a man or a woman wed a woman, it's not a marriage. Who the heck is the husband and the wife and why should either have to choose? "Well, we don't choose...but we're married." Huh?
Instead, call it a union with life partners, which are already terms in place. There's such a fixation on being assimilated and accepted into society that there's no embracing the differences.
So, instead of trying to compare the fight for gay marriage to the fight to end slavery or the right to vote, focus on embracing a word that make sense. If we can invent the word "Google" and it become a verb to replace the word and concept of search, we can create a word that means gay marriage.
>>The Bible speaks of husbands loving their wives.<<
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. is not a theocracy governed by a translation of any one interpretation of any one religious text. We're talking civil marriage here, not forcing any religion to marry anyone.
That being said, why should the government be able to tell my UCC pastor that s/he may NOT sign a marriage certificate for a same-gendered couple, any more than the government should be able to force any religious institution TO marry a same-gendered couple?
Clearly, the way things stand now, we have an establishment of religion by the government, since ALL the marriages performed by SOME denominations (those who marry only opposite-gendered couples) are legally recognized, while only SOME of those performed by others (denominations who marry both opposite- and same-gendered coupled)are recognized.
Either the government should recognize ALL religious marriages or NONE.I say we do things as much of Europe does-- have a religious ceremony if you want to, but also have a civil marriage which is legally binding under civil law.
Would YOU want to tell people you were "unioned"-- makes it sound like you just joined the IBEW or something. Ridiculous.
Ratgirl,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, there isn't any one religion marrying couples. After all, couples can get married in Vegas at 3am in the morning.
If we step away from the Biblical aspect and just make it simple: marriage = husband & wife...groom & bride...man & woman. When there are two men or two women, what is it, groom and groom? Bride and bride? Kinda silly.
Since you mentioned it, I'm less concerned about government telling your UCC pastor whom they can marry and more concerned that pastors are approving the union by conducting the ceremony. Makes me wonder what translation they are reading.
Since you are yet another to share how we should do things as they do in Europe, please feel free to move there.
While you might disagree with my suggestion of "union," I would embrace a word if it allowed me to exercise my choice.
Some additional great reading: Click here
ReplyDeleteSo basically you aren't in favor of gay marriage because you feel you'd be inconvenienced by semantic misunderstandings ? "What's your partner's name?" That doesn't sound so silly. It would certainly be easy to get used to. "George", they reply. Or "Heather". Right away you're sure if it's a man or a woman. As for the religious argument, you are entitled to your religious beliefs, but they are becoming less popular with the majority.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing, kids do need to be educated about sexuality. Kids start becoming curious about sexuality at an early age, and it's important that they know that sexual curiosity is completely normal, they be made aware that there are different naturally occurring sexual lifestyles, and that neither should be favored over the other.
Anonymous, my disagreement with gay marriage isn't about being inconvenienced. My post above was an attempt to focus on just how silly it is to force a square peg into a round hole - to try to force a same-sex union into a marriage. Since a marriage has a male and female, husband and wife, bride and groom...why try to change that foundation? Also, when there are two of the same sex, there is no husband or wife...no bride or groom! Therefore, no marriage. Find another word and embrace the difference.
ReplyDeleteYou say religious beliefs are becoming less popular with the majority? Sounds like you are buying in the liberal media and their assumptions about who is the majority and what or how people believe and feel. The media is VERY out of touch.
Lastly, children do become curious about sexuality at an early age but not in Kindergarten. At that age, what they should understand is that there are boys and girls and they came into the world because of their father and mother. Ideally, they are being raised by both parents but that's not always possible and my hats off to single parents.
Indeed, I don't feel that a gay couple should raise a child but I do not diminish the love that gay couples could show to a child no more than I diminish a single parent's love. All children need people in their lives that love them. I believe the most healthy and ideal scenario is for a child to grow up in a home with a male and female influence but this isn't always possible.