Common Sense Too
........... Part1 ............
Thank You TP
Common Sense Too
........... Part2 ............
Bill of Rights
Common Sense Too
........... Part3 ............
Common Sense Too
........... Part4 ............
Common Sense Too: Part 3
One Man - One Woman:|
A form of intolerance occurs when one group of people, in a quest to force others to conform to their views, labels their opposition with a derogatory term. If you are opposed to Homosexual marriage, the militant homosexual community will label you a Homophobe. I am against same sex marriage and even civil unions, but instead of cowering in fear of this label I embrace this title as a Badge of Honor in the fight against the intolerance coming from those who wish to win the debate through intimidation and aggression, instead of through the substance of their ideas.
I believe in smaller less intrusive government. I believe in individual freedom and sovereignty. Government power is granted to the government from the people and any power not granted to the government remains with the people.
One of the elements of this form of government, where each person is conceived with individual rights, is the recognition that minors need to learn honor, responsibility, and respect for the rights and sovereignty of other people. Only through mutual respect can rights be protected. Marriage between one man and one woman is the best institution to raise minors to the point where they can respect the rights and sovereignty of others. Without this mechanism to pass this lesson on to the next generation, a form of government based on rights is destined to fail.
As one of the elements required in promoting a system of government where individuals are created with individual rights and sovereignty, marriage must be afforded special recognition through laws and protections by the government. The best way to provide a stable environment for minors to learn to respect the rights of others and to learn that their rights are in turn only protected by this mutual respect is to provide special government protections for the institute of marriage.
As a believer in individual sovereignty and limited government, I feel that each person has the rights to decide the path of his own life to the point of not interfering with the sovereignty of other individuals. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a relationship with each other they should be afforded that liberty as they retain sovereignty over their own lives. If they want to swear allegiance to each other in a ceremony of affection toward each other, then that is their individual sovereign right to do so. Why do they need the blessing of the government and the forced blessing of the public to exercise this sovereignty over their own lives? They can draft and sign a contract if financial arrangements are a concern. The freedom they desire is available to them without the blessing of the government.
Marriage has evolved through centuries of the history of mankind. A commitment of one man and one woman to each other fosters a sense of trust and security. Without this commitment the relationship can be undermined by jealousy and insecurity. A secure relationship allows a couple the opportunities to unite together to raise their children with respect for the rights of others. Each person is born with the yearning for liberty and freedom. They must be taught to respect the liberty and freedoms of others. Marriage is the institution that best supports this learning process.
As you can see, I have logical reasonable arguments for why I am against same sex marriage. As Civil Unions are nothing more than marriage called by a different name, I am also against government sponsored civil unions. But instead of providing logical reasoned arguments countering my points and defending a form of government that is consistent with their views, militant same sex marriage defenders will contemplate where the hate in my heart is coming from. They will call me a homophobe at the top of their lungs and in unison, as the passion of their presentation will be viewed as proof of their righteousness. They may provide segmented arguments that, when separated from the context of an overall view of society, seem reasonable to justify their vitriol. But, when considered in the context of a form of government, their arguments require the imposition of their segment of society’s view, through government power, on a less vigilant segment of society.
Many may read my views above and agree in principle with these ideas. But as this issue might have little personal effect on their lives and the threat of being labeled with a derogatory name would cause great effect on their lives, many will find themselves cowering in silence or even proclaiming that homophobic hate speech is not appropriate in today’s society.
Giving in to this intolerance will only allow for the inability to discuss issues in a reasoned logical manor and will lead to the slow advancement of the loss of freedom. It is time to disarm those who use the homophobic label as a tool to intimidate those who are opposed to same sex marriage. Stand proudly for the institute of marriage. When you are labeled for proclaiming that marriage is the union of one man and one woman respond in kind, “Yes, I am a Homophobe.” The arrows directed your way will soon lose their effectiveness and then maybe we can have a civilized debate on this issue, as political correctness will have been neutralized.
The truth is that the rights of a person to choose the path of his own life (including the choice of sexuality) is best protected by a form of government that is limited while the sovereignty of each person over his own life is maximized. The best economic model to provide our country the maximum prosperity to facilitate that sovereignty is a capitalistic model. The best way to raise minor children to the point of becoming responsible sovereign individuals, who in turn respect the sovereignty of others, is the institution of marriage.
A form of government where the prevailing political power can impose its views as a group over the sovereignty of the individual is not the best form of government to protect the rights of those who wish to engage in an alternate lifestyle. While currently the homosexual community is a protected class in our society this status could easily change. As the homosexual population is a small minority in this country (less than 10%) and the majority of the religious population (greater than 50% of the country) feels that homosexuality is a sin, the majority could at any time decide through democracy and majority rule to restrict homosexuality. Currently this group is showing restraint by respecting individual choice over their own preferences. As militant groups attack their lifestyle they might someday use their majority population position in this country to retaliate through government mandates.
While the same sex marriage crowd may think they are advancing the cause of the homosexual community through the support of gay marriages they might actually be weakening an institution that is an integral part of the freedoms that they enjoy.
If you currently profess to be gay you can also be against same sex marriage. Your freedom and the freedom of all American’s as individuals might depend on it.