i have to write about it.
ive held off. and held off. and held off. where do i start? its been a challenge trying to figure out exactly how to say all the things i want to say.
well, tonight i got a lot of it out. and felt like i could keep writing for hours. or days. who knows.
a friend of mine put up a status on facebook talking about north carolina. it got 95 comments. at one point i quoted someone saying, "(he said)'if youve never had the right to get married you're not losing anything, you're just not gaining.' (i said).... i think this is a huge part of the problem in the way that people think about the issue."
he thanked me?
i think he misunderstood.
and then the whole debate turned into arguing if jesus existed and about two people of the same sex cant get married because marriage is defined as a holy union between a man and a woman (semantics). and finally, i just couldnt take it anymore. and i wrote a really lengthy response. and i want to share it because i feel like i did a pretty good job finally putting down in words how i feel about the arguments and the issue.
not to offend anyone, but i think that this conversation is
a good example of why its so hard to move forward on this issue. what starts off as a conversation about gay
marriage and whether or not two people of the same sex should be
"allowed" to get married and
whether or not they "deserve" the same rights as people of the
opposite sex when they get married...ultimately turns into an argument about
religion and whether or not jesus existed...but to the issue, it doesnt even
matter if he existed or not.
regardless
of what you or i or anyone believes to be true about jesus, its not relevant to
the issue as far as our GOVERNMENT is concerned. there is a reason we have (tried) to separate
religion from our government and our laws.
its because you cant apply one religion('s beliefs, rules, definition of
what is 'holy') in a religiously diverse country. it doesnt work, and it isnt working. whether or not same sex couples should be
allowed to get 'married' has nothing to do with whether or not jesus
existed. when it comes to civil rights,
its simply NOT FAIR, nor does it make any sense, to LEGALLY apply religious
rules/beliefs/expectations to people who dont ascribe to said religion. . . and
that's exactly what this is.
if you want
to talk about the definition of marriage being a 'holy union between man and
woman' and argue that THAT is why there is an issue with gay
"marriage" then i say get out of the debate. youre not really debating the issue, and
youre missing the bigger picture. youre arguing over semantics and thats just
another place people like to get hung up and argue while the real importance of
this issue gets overlooked. because if it was as simple as the words used to
define it, marriage wouldnt be a big deal to anyone. if it was just about what you call it, it
wouldnt matter. why would you care
whether or not you get married, why would it matter who else got married? if its that simple, why does anyone even
bother? if youre argument is that they cant get "married" because
marriage is "this" but civil unions are ok with you...and that was
REALLY what you thought, you wouldnt even bother to argue.
you want to talk semantics? fine.
in a HOLY institution (church), can a same sex couple get 'married'?
probably not. because that goes against
the beliefs of the church. and thats fine.
a church/religion can set whatever rules they want, and if you believe
in it, participate. if you dont, dont
participate in that religion. but to
this situation, it's irrelevant because thats not the point. its not about whether or not you can have a
same sex catholic wedding. no one is
arguing that. supporters of same sex
marriage are not petitioning churches to hold weddings there.
but should a same
sex couple be allowed to get 'married' under the law, if that law is governing
things like taxes and rights to things like children, medical decisions,
property, shared income, etc and that same law should have no religious strings
attached. yes, of course they should,
and if the definition of the word is whats holding up the situation, change the
definition, because a state separate from the church should have no say in
'holy unions' anyway.
what happens if you take religion out of it? what happens if you REALLY separate church
and state? if you can pretend for one
minute that religion doesnt exist, that there is no bible saying its a sin,
that there is no 'holy' part of the legal definition....where would the law
be? how would we justify keeping it from
being legal? i know there will be
arguments from certain people that they 'cant imagine god doesnt exist.' or
that you can't pretend there is no bible,
and i understand that for YOU, in your personal life, you cant imagine
that. but you have to know that there
ARE people who dont believe the same thing you do. and those people cant be expected to live
under laws that are governed by something they think is make believe. just like we wouldnt be expected to happily
go along with it if all of a sudden the government started basing laws that
affected your whole life, your rights to property and shared health insurance
and taxes, on fairy tales. it just seems
really silly to me.
this issue isnt
about whether or not jesus existed. and
its not about semantics and what words you use to define marriage. its about civil rights and whether or not its
right and just to deny this person the right to something (whether or not they
had it before) that this other person has always had. i challenge someone to argue against same
sex marriage from an atheist perspective, without strictly arguing semantics or
looking for other ways to win the argument that have nothing to do with the
REAL issue at hand.
because that would
be a new argument to me.
tell me why my
husband and i have the right to be 'married' and my friend and his boyfriend
dont. . .this is real stuff and these are people's REAL LIVES - people who you
dont know. people you could pass on the
street and you wouldnt know if they were married or not, and you wouldnt know
if they were married to someone of the same sex (race, religion, political
party, book club, hometown, whatever) or someone totally different from
them. and it whoever they were or werent
married to, it wouldnt matter. it
wouldnt affect your life at all. but it
matters to THEM and their lives and their happiness, just like your same-sex-christian
marriage matters to you and in a big, real and serious way.
IT ISNT ANY DIFFERENT.
who are you to
undermine that based the wording of the definition? just because a law or definition was written
in the past doesnt mean its right eternally or that it cant or shouldnt be
changed if and when it is found to be flawed.
in fact, words and their means have changed and will continue to change
throughout history.(etymology: the study of the history of words, their origins
and how their form and MEANING have changed over time.)
and to be clear, earlier when i quoted bill,
britt was right. it wasnt a
compliment. that way of thinking is what
keeps things (laws, countries, civilizations) stagnant, even if they arent
working or are hurtful, damaging or wrong.
thank god that the civil rights activists of the past didnt think that
way.
and that was that. because that is how i feel. it doesnt matter what you believe about god. because this isnt about you.
xo.
m.
No comments:
Post a Comment