Yes, they are inevitable.
According to a recent Gallup Survey 53% of Americans favor legal gay marriage. And as younger people become voters this percentage will increase.
So, those opposing gay marriage would best rationally just accept that gay unions with the equivalent of full marriage rights are inevitable - and being righteous about it will do anyone any good - I think Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, and the Dalai Lama would agree that righteousness and make wrong are not "right" acts.
The best that can be accomplished is to protect the term "marriage" for those who extremely value it as being a unique family unit. I think the majority of Americans do not have the right to trod on others - especially since there is another way to give equal rights to gay people.
The rational choice is to have a legal name such as civil unions for the gay person's full rights and to leave intact the term marriage for the traditional meaning, not changing the definition nor imposing the majority's will on others.
So, give up opposing such unions for gay people.
And, for others, please consider honoring others' beliefs and even holy values by giving them the respect of keeping intact the meaning of the family value of marriage.
This involves only a small compromise on both sides and accomplishes creating a greater good overall for the people involved - and that is what ethics is. And Ethics is how we should run our country and our lives. (Read Ethics.)
Will rationality prevail? Will you support rationality? What do you think about all of this?
Let's just be settled on this and accept the inevitable in a gracious way while being respectful of others...and let's get on with the key matters that will determine our future, creating an America of strong values and great effectiveness for producing financial abundance and benefit for all...and for creating greater happiness and health.
The Rational NonPolitician
Showing posts with label Gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
"God made the gay people..."
Science has proven that being gay is based on a different combination of hormones released early on that causes formation of what causes attraction to the same sex.
In religious terms, the argument that "God made the gay people too" makes sense. It is not some dysfunctional choice - and, yes, there is a choice on whether to do the behavior or not - but how many of us can resist our chemicals, especially when they are a powerful (God-given?) forces.
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. To place ourselves above other people who have different circumstances causing different things and different exposures causing their beliefs and models is what, I think, God might not say is very Christian or Muslim or whatever.
Hate or discrimination is primitive uninformed behavior, lacking logic and facts.
If people are to be true to the essence of religions, they would not do anything other than "love" and accept others. Those who believe they are 'right' cannot "prove" that, other than citing sources that are in themselves unproven and only taken on faith - and all faith is based on interpretation. And in elementary psychology we are taught that our perceptions and our unproven beliefs are not 'facts', no matter how many times they are repeated.
No one religion can be proven to be right over the other 10,000 that claim to be the right religion - and, of course, they can't all be right. So maybe the proper attitude here would be that of humility and no longer righteousness, when one is not 'for sure' right.
So, we are all humans and we almost all agree that there are certain inalienable human rights.
It is indisputable, no matter what your religious beliefs, that it is appropriate to respect others of all persuasions - and to follow the simple rules of only restricting what are clear and harmful excesses.
Gay rights are logical, totally.
Holding marriage as being what it has been defined for centuries makes sense too.
If we do not have the right to suppress others or impose our will over others unless there is a true ethical purpose, then the logical conclusion would be to not damage the institution of marriage and all the beliefs of those people that cherish it, and to assure those rights are allowed for a gay person but in a different form that is the virtual equivalent in substance. The logical alternative is to use "civil unions" or whatever special name that works but does not impinge on others' beliefs.
And can the gay rights side allow the marriage rights side to be honored just as the marriage rights side should allow the gay rights side to be honored? The street goes both ways. Compromise and cooperation are what works - not hate, righteousness, and/or suppression.
Comments welcome. Is this logical and fact-based? Does it remove the oppositional quality of the argument? Isn't it better to eradicate hate and come to a workable compromise where no one position is wiped out?
What do you think?
The Rational NonPolitician
In religious terms, the argument that "God made the gay people too" makes sense. It is not some dysfunctional choice - and, yes, there is a choice on whether to do the behavior or not - but how many of us can resist our chemicals, especially when they are a powerful (God-given?) forces.
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. To place ourselves above other people who have different circumstances causing different things and different exposures causing their beliefs and models is what, I think, God might not say is very Christian or Muslim or whatever.
Hate or discrimination is primitive uninformed behavior, lacking logic and facts.
If people are to be true to the essence of religions, they would not do anything other than "love" and accept others. Those who believe they are 'right' cannot "prove" that, other than citing sources that are in themselves unproven and only taken on faith - and all faith is based on interpretation. And in elementary psychology we are taught that our perceptions and our unproven beliefs are not 'facts', no matter how many times they are repeated.
No one religion can be proven to be right over the other 10,000 that claim to be the right religion - and, of course, they can't all be right. So maybe the proper attitude here would be that of humility and no longer righteousness, when one is not 'for sure' right.
So, we are all humans and we almost all agree that there are certain inalienable human rights.
It is indisputable, no matter what your religious beliefs, that it is appropriate to respect others of all persuasions - and to follow the simple rules of only restricting what are clear and harmful excesses.
Gay rights are logical, totally.
Holding marriage as being what it has been defined for centuries makes sense too.
If we do not have the right to suppress others or impose our will over others unless there is a true ethical purpose, then the logical conclusion would be to not damage the institution of marriage and all the beliefs of those people that cherish it, and to assure those rights are allowed for a gay person but in a different form that is the virtual equivalent in substance. The logical alternative is to use "civil unions" or whatever special name that works but does not impinge on others' beliefs.
And can the gay rights side allow the marriage rights side to be honored just as the marriage rights side should allow the gay rights side to be honored? The street goes both ways. Compromise and cooperation are what works - not hate, righteousness, and/or suppression.
Comments welcome. Is this logical and fact-based? Does it remove the oppositional quality of the argument? Isn't it better to eradicate hate and come to a workable compromise where no one position is wiped out?
What do you think?
The Rational NonPolitician
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)