Holly Baird has an interesting post on gay marriage. Personally, I think that gays are crazy to want to get married. Insurance companies could permit domestic partner coverage without marriage.
I do not think that the government should be involved in regulating marriage. Marriage is a religiously derived sacrament. The Catholic Church or any other religion should not be obligated to recognize what it considers to be a sin. However, there is no reason why a gay religion might not recognize marriage among gays. I don't believe the strong arm of the state should interfere with private choices unless the choices cause harm.
The abolition of state regulation of marriage need not modify divorce laws. The contractual nature of marriage need not change if all marriage is religious rather than civil. On the other hand, I think I can be convinced that divorce court should be abolished, and all divorce law should be religious in nature. I'm not convinced that marriage is a civil issue. It is religious.
I also disagree, incidentally, with the illegalization of polygamy, or for that matter polyandry, which feminists might prefer. The Bible has alot of polygamy, and there is no reason why the Mormons should have had to give it up. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in victimless crime questions. Child abuse is another story, of course. It is not victimless.
There is a long standing debate among people I know as to whether homosexuality is learned or inherited. The "liberal" view is that it is inherited, which contrasts with the "liberal" view on IQ scores--that they are environmentally acquired. That poses an interesting question: why do "liberals" send their children to elite private universities if the criteria to get in (SAT scores) are mere environmental artifacts and not inherited? Do they really believe that students learn more in expensive colleges?
It is kind of interesting: "liberals" say homosexuality is inherited but IQ is acquired, while "conservatives" say that IQ is inherited but homosexuality is learned. Whether one prefers the chicken or the egg seems to be a temperamental trait. I wonder if that trait is inherited, or environmentally determined!
I do not believe in gay marriage. First of all, marriage is a religious sacrament and/or state-derived relationship. I do not believe the state should play a role, so all marriage should be religious. If someone wants to get married, they should not have the right to ask the taxpayers to subsidize their folly. Go to church or sign a contract. I don't see how City Hall can sanctify a marriage. If gays want to start their own religion, then more power to them. The state should not be involved one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi, Professor!
I would like to add my humble opinion ragarding the liberal approach and the conservative approach to homosexuality.
I think both approaches have reasonable points.There are cases that verify the arguments of each of above-mentioned approaches.
From the standpoint of "conservative" aspect, homosexuality is learned through the environmental factors and parents' impacts on a person. It is believed that homosexuality appears in the early childhood. It shows itself in the emotions and feelings. Homosexuality is not a choice of sexual orientation, whereas homosexual activities can be a choice of related person.I mean one can feel that way, but one does not have to live in that way.
According to "liberal" aspect, due to defectiveness of chromosome, homosexulatiy is inherited. In some societies, it might be cultural as well. In one of the Pacific Island, to the best of my knowledge in Samoa, some families traditionally grow one of their boys as a girl. They treat them as a girl, causing boys to be a homosexual. This indicates that homosexuality can be learned.
Post a Comment