I was reading over a newspaper article recently about a leader of a Christian movement to deny city employees' domestic partners health benefits, and I couldn't help but wonder how some Christian leaders have gotten so far off track.
There are three premises of this movement that I strongly disagree with:
1: The idea that an individual is in a position to come into an adults home and inform them that based on his interpretation of an ancient holy text they are no longer free to choose with whom to have a relationship; his approval is now required.
2: The idea that the best way to "love the sinner and hate the sin" is to deny them healthcare. Denying people access to a doctor if they're having a relationship without a license is ridiculous.
3: The premise that Christianity is best served by letting the sick get sicker, but only as long as they're gay or unmarried domestic partners.
The only "family values" being shown here is letting people you disapprove of die. Oh that's right, they love the people so they promise to pray for their soul while letting their bodies die.
El Paso Times Article: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14401773?IADID
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
More Gay Marriage
Just to clarify:
What I did not mean was that individuals are beneficial to society depending on who they choose to have relationships with. To me that's a personal choice the government has no place interfering with except when one person in the relationship is a child, etc, which we can all agree upon. Should people have gay relationships? I don't think there will ever be a common consensus, and I think that's a debate for the religious or the philosophical, not for legal statuses. In my opinion, who people choose to have relationships with is none of my business, and God knows I'm a man with enough flaws that I'm not in a position to try to judge other peoples lives. Certainly I'm not in a position to try to judge them based on their personal relationships.
In my mind there's a line between what behavior the government should regulate, and under what circumstances the government should grant institutions special legal rights. As I understand it, the government grants special legal status and protections when those institutions benefit the interests of the state. For example:
Corporations get special limited liability because allowing less risk means increased economic growth for the nation;
Giving small businesses tax breaks means increased small business growth which encourages entrepreneurship and innovation and consequently is good for the nation;
Giving the press more freedom with libel and defamation laws concerning public officials encourages honest critique of government officials with less fear or reprisal (although on a side note it's sad what passes for journalism often these days);
Making Senators and Representatives privileged from arrest "in all cases except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" is granting them special status to prevent them from being detained so they can't vote which is central to democracy;
Giving tax breaks to college students increases college enrollment, which means a more educated population which is good for the nation;
Granting patents encourages inventions because without patents it would be impossible to make money off new inventions, so the act of the government granting special legal status encourages invention;
Giving tax breaks and marriage licenses to married couples encourages (certainly not guarantees) stable parenting and procreation which is in turn good for the nation;
This doesn't mean that the government has magically created stable families, a transparent democracy, honest congressmen, a highly educated population, and everyone is a hardworking inventor. But those things are encouraged by the act of the government granting or denying special legal benefits and protections that the population at large doesn't get. It's a question of what the government can do to encourage institutions to further various state interests.
These things aren't rights, they are privileges that the state grants to institutions when that institution furthers the interests of the state. Me paying taxes does further the interests of the state, but that doesn't mean I should be able to take the same tax deductions on my personal car that a small business owner does, or that I should be like Senators and be exempt from all laws except treason, or that I should get the same tax benefits that a married couple does.
So, in my mind, the question is what institutions provide a clear benefit to the interests of the state by being granted special legal status. IMO, straight marriage has passed that test, but gay marriage hasn't.
So in my mind the question is: how does gay marriage as an institution further the interests of a nation (keeping in mind it should provide a benefit that doesn't exist without special legal status, or will be amplified by special legal status)?
What I did not mean was that individuals are beneficial to society depending on who they choose to have relationships with. To me that's a personal choice the government has no place interfering with except when one person in the relationship is a child, etc, which we can all agree upon. Should people have gay relationships? I don't think there will ever be a common consensus, and I think that's a debate for the religious or the philosophical, not for legal statuses. In my opinion, who people choose to have relationships with is none of my business, and God knows I'm a man with enough flaws that I'm not in a position to try to judge other peoples lives. Certainly I'm not in a position to try to judge them based on their personal relationships.
In my mind there's a line between what behavior the government should regulate, and under what circumstances the government should grant institutions special legal rights. As I understand it, the government grants special legal status and protections when those institutions benefit the interests of the state. For example:
Corporations get special limited liability because allowing less risk means increased economic growth for the nation;
Giving small businesses tax breaks means increased small business growth which encourages entrepreneurship and innovation and consequently is good for the nation;
Giving the press more freedom with libel and defamation laws concerning public officials encourages honest critique of government officials with less fear or reprisal (although on a side note it's sad what passes for journalism often these days);
Making Senators and Representatives privileged from arrest "in all cases except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" is granting them special status to prevent them from being detained so they can't vote which is central to democracy;
Giving tax breaks to college students increases college enrollment, which means a more educated population which is good for the nation;
Granting patents encourages inventions because without patents it would be impossible to make money off new inventions, so the act of the government granting special legal status encourages invention;
Giving tax breaks and marriage licenses to married couples encourages (certainly not guarantees) stable parenting and procreation which is in turn good for the nation;
This doesn't mean that the government has magically created stable families, a transparent democracy, honest congressmen, a highly educated population, and everyone is a hardworking inventor. But those things are encouraged by the act of the government granting or denying special legal benefits and protections that the population at large doesn't get. It's a question of what the government can do to encourage institutions to further various state interests.
These things aren't rights, they are privileges that the state grants to institutions when that institution furthers the interests of the state. Me paying taxes does further the interests of the state, but that doesn't mean I should be able to take the same tax deductions on my personal car that a small business owner does, or that I should be like Senators and be exempt from all laws except treason, or that I should get the same tax benefits that a married couple does.
So, in my mind, the question is what institutions provide a clear benefit to the interests of the state by being granted special legal status. IMO, straight marriage has passed that test, but gay marriage hasn't.
So in my mind the question is: how does gay marriage as an institution further the interests of a nation (keeping in mind it should provide a benefit that doesn't exist without special legal status, or will be amplified by special legal status)?
For or Against Gay Marriage
State recognition of marriage exists under the notion that encouraging stable parenting hand in hand with procreation is beneficial to the state. The state doesn't grant special status to married couples to encourage romantic love, but to further the interests of stable procreation. It's obviously not a perfect system, but it does encourage it. If romantic love was the sole criteria for a marriage license then the notion of marriage would become meaningless (polygamy, etc).
While some straight couples are unable to have children, most can. The process of weeding out which couples are sterile, whether just one member of the couple is, whether they are permanently sterile or simply have a very small chance of bearing children, etc, would be a very costly and time consuming process. In addition to which, straight parents adopting children is a benefit to the state. While (as far as I could find, if y'all can find some I'd be interested in reading it/them) there are no scientific studies showing that gay parents are better or worse than straight parents. Which means the burden of proof lies on the people desiring special legal status, because if everyone automatically received the legal recognition then it wouldn't be a "special" status anymore.
Gay couples on the other hand are 100% unable to have children together. Again, as far as adoption I couldn't find any - but will happily read them if y'all find them - studies showing that gay parents are better or worse than two straight parents or foster parents or straight single parents.
The question isn't what behavior the government should regulate, but under what circumstances should the government grant special legal status to someone?
The answer, as I understand it, is when those people provide a benefit to the state. Corporations get special protection from liability because limited liability means more growth, etc. Marriage is benefical to the state because it encourages (not guaruntees) stable parenting and procreation.
Straight marriage has proven benefits for the state, and I'm interested to hear what benefits y'all think gay marriage has for the state? Because my understanding of the law is that unless someone proves that the government granting them special legal status provides a benefit to the state then they don't deserve the special legal status.
While some straight couples are unable to have children, most can. The process of weeding out which couples are sterile, whether just one member of the couple is, whether they are permanently sterile or simply have a very small chance of bearing children, etc, would be a very costly and time consuming process. In addition to which, straight parents adopting children is a benefit to the state. While (as far as I could find, if y'all can find some I'd be interested in reading it/them) there are no scientific studies showing that gay parents are better or worse than straight parents. Which means the burden of proof lies on the people desiring special legal status, because if everyone automatically received the legal recognition then it wouldn't be a "special" status anymore.
Gay couples on the other hand are 100% unable to have children together. Again, as far as adoption I couldn't find any - but will happily read them if y'all find them - studies showing that gay parents are better or worse than two straight parents or foster parents or straight single parents.
The question isn't what behavior the government should regulate, but under what circumstances should the government grant special legal status to someone?
The answer, as I understand it, is when those people provide a benefit to the state. Corporations get special protection from liability because limited liability means more growth, etc. Marriage is benefical to the state because it encourages (not guaruntees) stable parenting and procreation.
Straight marriage has proven benefits for the state, and I'm interested to hear what benefits y'all think gay marriage has for the state? Because my understanding of the law is that unless someone proves that the government granting them special legal status provides a benefit to the state then they don't deserve the special legal status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)