Everyone has their input about California's Prop 8, or Arizona's 102. I am no different.
The argument presented by supporters of equal marriage rights, is that marriage is a right that everyone should have, regardless of who they love. The ability to love, is one that the country protects, and should extend unto every human that lives in it.
The Yes voters, say that for over 5000 years, marriage was man and woman. It has not been redefined in that time. Yet, this is only partially true. Then it was often for political purpose. Land trade. A way of joining powerful families. Today, it's about love. Then, races could not intermarry. Now, regardless of your background, you can marry. Unless you love the same sex, that is.
The issue that Yes voters love to present, is that we all have equality. Our choices, are not extended the same curtesy. Yet, the choice of religion is totally protected. Sure, you can worship Christ, and follow with a large population of this country. However you can always worship Satan, his eternal enemy. Or follow Mohammad, or the peaceful teachings of the Buddha. Each of these choices, these "lifestlyes" are protected in the Constitution. The ability to love, and marry whomever you want, is not.
All these Yes voters say, that being gay is a choice. That the American constitution, and people, cannot protect such a choice. They'll protect the people who choose to follow a religion that teaches "love your neighbors", even though the same religion does not respect, the love those neighbors choose to share. The Yes voters protect the choice to drive a car that destroys our planet, and economy, one tank of gas at a time.
Yet, they will not protect love. They do not protect something that is not a choice, it's a fundamental human emotion. They say it's a choice.
So then, when did you choose not to be gay?
The New PostSecret Book
11 years ago
0 comments:
Post a Comment