Rethinking the Issue of Gay Marriage...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
There is a lot of attention being given to the issue of gay marriage. Why I didn't really understand, until today.
Sure, I did a post at RN USA that was published in the Daily Caller in 2010. Certainly the DC is far from a liberal publication, nevertheless they ran my article.
My article was essentially in support of the rights of LGBT individuals to be treated equally. The basis of my arguments can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Positions that I now hold with even stronger convictions.
However, until today I argued that same sex unions should not be considered marriages. Like so many I felt that marriage was between one man and one women, the traditional concept of marriage.
So you may be asking, what made this day different enough to change your position? Really it is quite simple. I was wrong.
After talking with a friend today that happens to have a daughter that is lesbian I saw a perspective I had not witnessed before much less considered. While I know many gay people, and have daily business as well as casual social relationships with them I never fully appreciated the frustrations that gay and lesbian people feel. Today, I got a glimpse through the eyes of my friend, the mother of a normal and healthy young women what the issue is really all about.
For me, a individual that holds freedom and individual liberties at a very high premium, the highest actually, it occurred to me (with the help of my wife and the aforementioned friend) that the issue is really about those concepts that I hold most dear. Freedom and individual liberties. Individuals that are gay are not gay because they choose to be. They are gay because just like heterosexuals it is just the way it is. Like heterosexuals they simply want to be who they are. They have that right and they should be free to love, live with, and or marry whom they choose
While I am certain to take my share of criticism for "flip flopping" I frankly do not care. People do indeed evolve. When such evolution occurs because of a honest intellectual thought process, one that upon close examination is correct then such evolution is good. And society is made better.
We need not fear the LGBT community with whom we work with and live. Rather we should fear the boogieman that keeps us from allowing people that are not "straight" from living their lives as they see fit. Because if we don't, that same boogieman may morph into something that might prevent each and everyone of us from living the life we choose. Assuming that life does not harm another.
A respected Republican Pollster, Jan R. van Lohuizen lays out the reasons the GOP, the socons, and conservatives in general need to reconsider their views and opinions. Not only for practical political reasons but because it is the right thing to do.
Being comfortable in ones own skin makes it by far easier to consider positions once felt to be taboo.
Via: Memorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
There is a lot of attention being given to the issue of gay marriage. Why I didn't really understand, until today.
Sure, I did a post at RN USA that was published in the Daily Caller in 2010. Certainly the DC is far from a liberal publication, nevertheless they ran my article.
My article was essentially in support of the rights of LGBT individuals to be treated equally. The basis of my arguments can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Positions that I now hold with even stronger convictions.
However, until today I argued that same sex unions should not be considered marriages. Like so many I felt that marriage was between one man and one women, the traditional concept of marriage.
So you may be asking, what made this day different enough to change your position? Really it is quite simple. I was wrong.
After talking with a friend today that happens to have a daughter that is lesbian I saw a perspective I had not witnessed before much less considered. While I know many gay people, and have daily business as well as casual social relationships with them I never fully appreciated the frustrations that gay and lesbian people feel. Today, I got a glimpse through the eyes of my friend, the mother of a normal and healthy young women what the issue is really all about.
For me, a individual that holds freedom and individual liberties at a very high premium, the highest actually, it occurred to me (with the help of my wife and the aforementioned friend) that the issue is really about those concepts that I hold most dear. Freedom and individual liberties. Individuals that are gay are not gay because they choose to be. They are gay because just like heterosexuals it is just the way it is. Like heterosexuals they simply want to be who they are. They have that right and they should be free to love, live with, and or marry whom they choose
While I am certain to take my share of criticism for "flip flopping" I frankly do not care. People do indeed evolve. When such evolution occurs because of a honest intellectual thought process, one that upon close examination is correct then such evolution is good. And society is made better.
We need not fear the LGBT community with whom we work with and live. Rather we should fear the boogieman that keeps us from allowing people that are not "straight" from living their lives as they see fit. Because if we don't, that same boogieman may morph into something that might prevent each and everyone of us from living the life we choose. Assuming that life does not harm another.
A respected Republican Pollster, Jan R. van Lohuizen lays out the reasons the GOP, the socons, and conservatives in general need to reconsider their views and opinions. Not only for practical political reasons but because it is the right thing to do.
Being comfortable in ones own skin makes it by far easier to consider positions once felt to be taboo.
Via: Memorandum
Les, I commend you for rethinking your position and viewing it through the lens of liberty.
ReplyDeleteI heard a great question on this topic and it is one that anyone who is opposed to marriage equality should ask themselves; how does gay marriage affect you personally? Not in the grand scheme of things but rather what negative impact does it have on your daily life?
The short answer is none.
Viewed from this perspective, it comes down to people simply wanting to dictate how other people choose to live, which goes against the entire concept of freedom.
Thanks Chris. It took a little while but ultimately reason and liberty won the day. As it usually always does. It is too bad that social conservatives cannot focus on the need to reign in our fiscal excesses and balance the budget erather than this assault on individual freedoms.
DeleteIf you want to get a sample of what I mean take a saunter over Progressive Eruptions and get a load of one real sick person on the right. It that individual diatribe of hate is representative of the conservative agenda modern day (now)conservatism cannot die soon enough.
Gary Johnson said on CSpan last night that he was in favor of marriage equality, too. So, yeah, you're in very good company, Les.
ReplyDeleteWell Will, If a crusty old conservative (in the real sense; ie: classical liberal) can change and evolve into more rational thinking I guess anybody can. At least that is my hope.
DeleteI commend you my friend for getting a bigger set sooner than I did. :)
I knew that your libertarian leanings would bring you around eventually and they did.
Deleteif you want to take a Statist position on this issue, that is fine. if you want to join the camp of the collectivist on this issue that is fine.
ReplyDeletei may end up being the only individualist that still cannot find a single argument that would validate same sex marriage and until i do i remain opposed to the idea.
Griper, as always I respect your right to hold these views. However, contrary to your "boogieman" belief my position is not statist, rather it is, as Chris so correctly pointed out viewing the issue through the lenses of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
DeleteYour view, at least in my judgement is the view of the collectivist. Rounding up people of different views and pigeonholing them into some sort of corral or barn that fits your views is merely placing people into collective groups that serve only the purpose of "collectivizing" people by some given statist view. Whomever that statist or group of judgmental statists may be.
As I said I respect your right to your view. I simply no longer buy that it is the individualistic view and it certainly is not the view representative of freedom. liberty, or equality.
Les,
ReplyDeleteI now count this with the most important moments in the history of my affirmation of humanity.
Thank you. Well thought out! My friend!
JMJ
Chris,
ReplyDeletethere are a lot of things that do not have a direct impact on a person's life but are still considered wrong in our society.
polygamy would be but one simple example related to this issue. and this is something that is practiced openly, though illegally, in some parts of this country.
and marriage as it is legally practiced in this nation is an equal opportunity institution already.
And just because it is considered wrong by society, is it wrong? Again what direct impact does it have on you?
DeleteLook, I think polygamy is weird and against the norm but, what two consenting adults who both have the right to self-ownership do is their business.
It's not up to you, me, the government or anyone else to interfere in a private contract.
Here is my problem with marriage be it gay or other, why is the state in charge? The state should not be issuing licenses for people to carry out a long standing religious rite. The state should only be involved in recognizing the union of two people in a manner that they share their lives and assets/liabilities. I don't care if anyone ever gets "married" because this that is a personal choice between them and their religion, but I think the state should not be picking the rules ever.
ReplyDeleteThis is my take on the subject as seen through the lens of freedom. This is a personal freedom issue and lets push the state back out of another part of our lives. I fully understand that there needs to be a legal tool to show the incorporation, but it shouldn't be the state giving us a license to do something we should have every right to do and it shouldn't be an approval by the same state to allow us to join together. The legal matter has the rules of incorporation and that should handle it vice a "marriage license".
Les, I agree with you, but take it one step further because the state should be giving us license to do something that we are fully capable of making a decision on all by ourselves without their assistance or permission. The state should handle the legal aspects only to recognize the union, incorporation, or whatever else you want to call the legal action. Leave the marriage part to the people and their chosen method of symbolically celebrating the legal action. I have felt this way for a long time and it evolved from the gay marriage discussion because I agree that it harms no one and effects me in no way shape or form. The gay people I know, just wanted to be "legal" and have the state acknowledge their union just like everyone else, but I say why not fix the real problem instead.
Always ironic that the Republican party stands for individual liberty as long as it does not involve Gay marriage or abortion. These are two instances when individual liberty should be upheld to the highest level.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is more than a religious rite because the courts have deemed it to be a legal contract with severe penalties if you cancel the contract. You can lose your house, income and children so it goes far beyond a religious rite.
Does it really affect anyone if gays and lesbians marry. I know it doesn't affect me in the least other than I have to provide healthcare to another spouse, something I believe I should do anyway. Anyone who believes Biden was not instructed to issue an opinion and that forced Obama to make a stance is dilutional. It was meant to divert attention from the poor job Obama has done with the economy and strengthen his Hollywood and gay supporters, it worked.
The Joker and the Bumbler always find new and interesting ways to distract the public from the por job they are doing. The silver bullet issues now are going to hurt him in the fall when he will really need something to distract the voters from his poor record. I love that he rolled this one out so early because everyone knew that he was lying and it is no huge surprise that he supports it and it really isn't an issue with most Americans. The problem he is going to have six months from now is that this grand diversion will have played out and he will need to do something even more sensational to distract the voters from his dismal record. I am torn between curiosity and fear for our future over what he might roll out next.
Delete