|
August 17, 2008 For centuries, a “marriage” was established as a monogamous pairing of a man and a woman. In separate cultures this institution had various benefits and disadvantages. It had no legal court definition drafted in most countries, including the United States of America, because it didn’t need one. Legally defining marriage seemed as necessary as legally defining the sun. Everyone calls the big bright ball of fire in the sky “the sun”, so let’s all call it that. Trees are trees. Do we need a legal definition? Marriage is marriage. I encourage further reading of the legal definition at The Free Dictionary. Now, with the rise of homosexuality to the full attention of the rest of American society, with great assistance from Hollywood and celebrities like a lesbian pair that just got "married" in California yesterday, the universal standard of marriage is being perverted, distorted, and misused. Looking beyond many various influential religious beliefs, a freedom which all U.S. citizens are given in the Bill of Rights but none of which can be endorsed by the U.S. government, we should focus on the legal aspect of this issue while also keeping in mind general social acceptance. Great strides have been made since the early twentieth century toward racial equality. Profitable business chains are fronted by Asian Americans. Successful and larger-than-life Hispanic celebrities make millions. An African-American senator is running for President. Color is still present, but the legal system has reduced bias toward any one race, providing opportunities for everyone regardless of color. Recent generations have also learned to look beneath the skin and see the skills and ideas each of us can bring to American culture. The same can be said of gender equality. Women have achieved many of the same successes as men have in the past. They are breaking through the so-called “glass ceiling”, often making as much as, or more than, men in similar jobs based on performance or educational background. Women are leading corporations just as well as men. They have also become senators running for President. Quite often in the media, the tables have been fully turned, when women are depicted as leading the American society while men are inept and child-like. However, the same social acceptance has not been given to homosexuals. Though “coming out” is celebrated by the homosexual community and its friends with parties and parades, homosexuals are commonly shunned world-wide and are frequently executed in some countries. In the U.S.A., homosexuals don’t face anything as harsh as execution, but they still face the obstacle of having their unions recognized as legal marriages…until Massachusetts and California legalized it…again. The problem with that is this: Since we’ve already established (minus the unnecessary formality of a legal definition in the U.S. federal government) that marriage is socially defined as a monogamous pairing of a man and a woman, a union of anything else is not a marriage. Call it something else, but it’s not marriage and should not be given the previously mentioned benefits and disadvantages of marriage. Consider the fact that brass is an amalgam of copper and zinc. No other combination can make brass. And mixing copper with copper is still just a bunch of copper. Similarly, a marriage is established by conjoining a man and a woman. No other combination can form a marriage. And conjoining a man and a man is still just two men while conjoining a woman and a woman is still just two women. We do have laws stating that a marriage is not a legal union if it involves more than two people. There is no third gender, so this law, at least partially, eliminates the possibility of two of the same gender being united in marriage. Also, a person cannot be married to him or her self. International marriages can anchor an immigrant’s citizenship in the U.S.A. and interracial marriages are more and more common and accepted nowadays along with their interracial children. But no laws of society or nature are broken since these marriages are still between one man and one woman. Homosexual marriage is merely the next step in the abuse of marriage toward interspecies marriage. This essay isn't about homosexuality itself, but the legal rights that homosexuals may or may not deserve. But if you want to bring science into it, I think it's pretty clear that throughout the animal kingdom, males mate with females to produce offspring. That's it. They eat, sleep, and reproduce. Humans are no different. We've just found ways to shape our environment to our will, organize our ranks, and entertain ourselves with toys we've made. People forget that humans are animals too. The only other animal that has been observred to have sex for pleasure as well as for reproduction is the dolphin. Dolphins may also exhibit violent sexual behavior toward either gender and they may sometimes attempt to mate with other dolphin species. And, yes, some dolphins may exhibit homosexual tendencies and some sexual aggression toward other animals, including humans. Dolphins do seem to want to mate with anything that moves, but, then again, maybe it's being overanalyzed. I mean, a dog will hump your leg. Homosexuality is often referred to as a "lifestyle", a behavior, and behaviors can be changed. An African-American can’t change their race to become Caucasian. Racially, genetically, they’re African-American. A woman can’t change her gender and become a man. Don’t get me started on the “pregnant man”. I don’t care how many surgeries she has to play dress-up with her skin, she’s still a woman. Uterus. Two X chromosomes. Woman. However, a homosexual is not bound by genetic facts. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. If a homosexual person changes his or her mind, and prefers to be paired with the opposite gender, then that person, who has chosen to behave heterosexually, is entitled to a marriage. But until they decide to follow the socially (a.k.a. morally) accepted rules, they’re not entitled to a legal union. If someone prefers to have sex with a dog, that person does not get the right to be legally married to that dog. It’s not socially—morally—accepted. Without rules, we have chaos. If you want to argue genetic homosexuality, e-mail me. But let me say that it must then be treated as a defect, a syndrome, if you will, as it is so often referred to as "queer" by even the homosexual community itself. However, if medical officials were to give homosexuality the status of a mental and/or physical handicap/disability/challenge/whatever, such as Down Snyndrome or Fetal Alcohol Snydrome, or perhaps label it a behavioral disorder such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder or Bipolar Disorder, we'd never hear the end of it. Everyone is too afraid to be politically incorrect, so the proper studies on this issue are not performed and nothing is done to put things in perspective in an effort to right the wrongs of this broken society. I refuse to sit back and watch those who abuse universal principles attempt to mold society to not only accept, but endorse, defiance. Something must be done to stop this advancement before illegal and immoral actions dictate our society. That would be intolerable! Next thing you know, people from other countries will want to live and work in the U.S.A., drive on our roads, use our resources, not pay taxes, and call this land their home while reaping the benefits that come with citizenship. Wait a minute… |