Saturday, October 11, 2008

Special risks deserve a special title -- "Marriage"

America has made great strides in eliminating inequality. And as a melting pot of diversity we pride ourselves in trying to accept all people regardless of sex, race or religion. But we don’t melt ourselves into one gender, one color, one mold. We allow distinctions to be made without taking equality from those distinctions. We call a human being a man or a woman with out saying that either is less human. A person can be Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist and is still equal to an Atheist or Mormon. The different name connotes exactly that, differences, without making one more or less equal. And because same sex partnerships are different than traditional marriages, they should be called something different. Not to take away equality but to distinguish between two different types of unions.

Every time a heterosexual couple has sexual relations, there is usually a chance that a child could be born. Obviously with birth control, age and other factors this chance can be greatly reduced, even eliminated. But for many there is still some risk of creating a child, even with the best of plans to prevent it. That risk, is why society created marriage – to protect expected and unexpected children.

There should be a distinction between the type of union that takes intense time, effort and outside intervention to have a child and the type of union that takes continuous planning not to have a child. One union is much riskier when it comes to creating children. Homosexual and heterosexual love may be equal, but the possibility of an unexpected child is not equal.

Another factor that is not equal is the thousand-year-old definition of marriage. All literature that makes reference to marriages, wives and husbands since the begging of written language has very similar definitions. By calling the very new idea of homosexual unions “marriage” dilutes the word “marriage” and completely destroys the words “husband” and “wife,” which will become archaic and meaningless. We will have to explain to our great grandchildren when they read literature that “wife,” used to mean a woman that was married to a man.

I like the word “wife.” It means I am a woman, I am married to a man, I am taking a risk with my body if I accidentally get pregnant whether I have the child or not. That’s one of the reasons women get married to men, because the risks of having sex with a man are so great, that they want to be married.

When Martin Luther King fought for the rights of all Americans, he didn’t try to take away rights from some and give them to others. He tried to make America fair for all. If homosexual couples are allowed to call their unions marriage, they are taking the words “marriage” and “wife” from me. It’s kind of like calling all soft drinks Cokes. If I’m a Pepsi, I don’t want to be called a Coke. Though the differences are slight. There are differences.

Homosexuals can register as partners. They could even come up with a new word if they don’t like the word partnership. And maybe because Lesbian couples are different from Gay men couples they might want to come up with two terms. But please, we can protect the rights of all and still protect the definition of marriage. One man, one women, maybe some children if all goes right or not. That’s the risk we have called marriage for eons.

5 comments:

Nicole said...

Love your new blog Tracey! I wish everyone could read all of this great information! Well done and well said!

Lori said...

Very well said!

bethanyr32 said...

I love the point you make about our "melting pot" society - just because we are tolerant and accept people who are different than us doesn't mean we all have to become the same! We should accept and embrace our differences and acknowledge that we ARE different.

beetlebabee said...

Thanks for your post, it's so great to have like minded thinkers uniting. I think it is outrageous that the opposition can sit and claim that same sex marriage will have no effect on our society. I read a sign recently in a news article that read, “How does my same sex marriage harm yours?” What is the harm to our children, to our rights, to our freedoms? What is the harm to our nation, our families, if same sex marriage as a currently defined “civil right” continues to move forward? The gay marriage lobby contends that it won’t hurt, won’t harm, won’t change anything for the majority of society, but the evidence is mounting, demonstrating that not only will things change, but they will change in a major way. In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, “We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re coming after your children.” Is that just some fringe quote? Or is it indicative of a widely held innate desire to be accepted by society at all costs?

If we don’t start fighting back, changes will come like dominoes across the nation. Massachusetts, California, Connecticut….if we’re going to stand up, now is the time. Marriage is the fundamental building block of our society, changes to it’s definition will create ripples of change reaching every corner of our lives over time. This is not a small issue.

We've only got 22 days left. I am encouraged to see the message getting out!

JJ said...

please respect gays
if its equal
it can be compared to the jim crow laws of the 60's
blacks are allowed to drink from the water fountain
its just not the same as where the whites are
gays have all the same rights
but they are not recognized as the same as a hetero couple
you are all bigots
the gays arent ruining the families
you REPUBLICANS
are the ones ruinign our families and the whole of america
realize that gays have feelings too
and prop 8 will destroy many people
think other than your selfish bigot self
you will probly ban this
just proving my point that ur trying to block the opposition