Marriage Amendment
Prelude- This is a very large and difficult topic to talk about and I didn't know where to start. I have been working on this thing for somewhere around an hour and a half and this is what I have to show for it.
I wish that we could all agree on things. I guess that's why there are politics.
This November we have a vote that can change our state constitution. Of course there is the election for President but this is important too. The right to marry.
I suppose I should let you know where I stand. I believe that people should have the right to marry whoever they choose. Unfortunately, I will be too young to vote in November.
The meat of my argument comes down to this. Why limit the right to marry of others? It isn't like their marriage makes yours any less meaningful. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If marrying somebody of the same sex is what makes you happy, then why not? Procreation is not the goal of a marriage anymore. 7 billion people is enough...
I'm not going to continue with that anymore. But, I do think that this is a knowledge issue. What some people believe is much different than what others believe. By my figuring, I use reason to determine where I stand on this topic. I don't see how it would hurt me, so why not? However, I think that those who believe marriage is between man and woman, use emotion (I should try and avoid fallacies. I know.) For instance, they might feel like a gay marriage threatens their marriage or makes it less meaningful.
I think it is very interesting though how emotional of a topic this is. Interestingly enough, if this definition of marriage is amended to the constitution, gay marriage is in the simplest way to put it, not gonna happen. If this is not amended, there are still many steps to making gay marriage legal. A do or die situation for the vote no-ers.
---
That is all I got folks. Thanks for reading, my loyal fans. While all of you are off having fun at the football game, I'll be all cooped up inside studyin' for the ACT. Wish me luck!
While I don't want to limit the definition of marriage at this point, there may come a time where we will have to draw the line. Every term needs a definition, and frankly, if "marriage" could mean anything from "1 man, 1 woman" to "38 men, 51 women, 3 cows, 10,033 parrots, and a 3-car garage", there might be a problem.
ReplyDeleteBut more on your specific question: it is simply a matter of ingrained moral code (ie, religion) that drives most people to limit the right to marry. Since many people put religion at the forefront of their major decisions and are very emotional about it, using an emotional appeal/threat on people can be a very effective, and sometimes the only effective, tactic.
I still find it interesting that our school chastised "Vote Yes" people (anti-GM people) and ignored "Vote No" people. Overcompensation FTW.
PS: What part of a football game is fun? And good luck on the ACT. I believe in you!
Cody-
ReplyDeleteYou raise a point on the whole 10,033 parrots. I think it was the 3 cows that got your point across.
On a serious note, a lot of this debate revolves around religion. But when it comes down to it, is one little piece of your religion more important than somebody's rights (or three million people's rights)?
On the issue of Vote No/Vote Yes in the school. I do think it is interesting how our school feels like we all support GM. I mean, I saw a group of boys walking through the hallway wearing Minnesota for Marriage T-Shirts and I immediately thought 'idiots.' I don't personally know them or have any reason to judge them other than what they wear. In fact, nobody really wears a Vote Yes T but seeing a No T is part of my daily routine.
Maybe they should just get rid of the whole Vote Yes/No T's in school.
P.S. On another note, according to the new district policy around gay relationships/marriage/etc., teachers aren't supposed to reveal their stance on these issues (I believe). If this is true, a lot of teachers have been breaking this rule.
LOL.
Cody (and Christian), I think it is interesting that you bring up the point that our school chastised the "Vote Yes" people and ignored the "Vote No" people. I wonder why this is? From experience, I have learned that there is a large Liberal population at CP, and since gay-marriage is traditionally supported by Democrats, I can see why this issue has really been talked about at our school. It's interesting to think about what will happen in the future about this issue.
ReplyDeleteI spoke about the GM issue with my parents a while back and they said something that might be beneficial to the conversation. My dad had brought up the idea that the younger generation is more accepting of GM and it is just a matter of time (basically until the older generation dies) before this will become totally acceptable. While this may be a slight fallacy, I do believe that us youngins are more tolerable.
ReplyDelete(Do you think this is a result of society? We are basically told that if you don't accept these people, you are going to be suspended or whatever. Way back when, Gays were bullied for that reason and nobody was punished for it. Also, the fact that there is a GLBTQ group in about every school across MN.)
The reason (I believe) for the sudden reversal of treatment of gays in educational institutions is likely a combination of genuine realization of the rights of other people and a sudden desire to (over)compensate for the poor treatment given in the past, as revealed by media outlets. If that Rolling Stone article about the Anoka-Hennepin School District's neutrality policy and the deaths that ensued had not been published, would things have changed?
ReplyDeleteCallin' em out, eh? I think it still might have happened but that put us under the national spotlight. Might I mention that the new policy is even worse. Now we just don't talk about it.
ReplyDelete