Heterosexuals Do Not Have Special Rights; Contrary to Claims by Gay Rights Advocates
By Christian Hine
The “gay marriage” issue is set to take center stage in the press today.
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down its decision in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8, which revised the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. In May of 2008, the same court ruled that marriage laws denying same-sex couples the right to wed violated the state’s constitution, thus prompting citizens to take action via referendum (Proposition 8).
I find it interesting that proponents of gay “marriage” claim to be fighting for “equal rights”. According to them, the “right” of traditional marriage is being protected by the state while those who seek same-sex marriage are being denied that “right” and are thus discriminated against. The problem for them is that definitions are stubborn things.
Look in any dictionary and the term “marriage” is defined in some form as follows:
“The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”
Based on simple definitions, the argument of denied rights for homosexuals holds no standing. Indeed, using both the definition of marriage and any current laws that specifically deny same-sex marriage, there is not one right being granted a heterosexual that a homosexual does not share.
To wit:
A male can marry a female. It doesn’t matter if that male is homosexual or heterosexual; the same right to marry a female exists for both individuals. No special right is being granted the heterosexual that the homosexual does not also share. Ah, but the homosexual will claim that he can’t marry the person (another male) that he loves and wants to marry and is therefore being discriminated against. The problem here is that the homosexual is left attempting to define a “want” as a “right”. While having the same right to marry a female as a heterosexual male, the homosexual is now demanding his want to marry another male. Thankfully, in civilized society, the state and other individuals do not place the burden on themselves of guaranteeing other people’s wants. Society would crumble if it did. I “want” a nice yacht and a BMW, but it is by no means my “right” to have them.
To the contrary of the denied right argument, and the subject of another essay, is that new so-called “hate crimes” legislation actually begins to grant special protections and preferred class status to many minority groups, including homosexuals, in excess of what their majority counterparts are awarded. Odd how we don’t find proponents of gay marriage fighting “hate crimes” laws based on the same argument of equal protection under the law that they mistakenly apply to marriage law.
To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.
Marriage, however, has a standing definition. It is this definition that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to change, much to the chagrin of countless individuals who, based on their religious ideology, simple tradition, or other factors, would rather not see changed. This is understandable in the same way (to give an admittedly excessive example) that a baseball player couldn’t simply start calling a base hit a “home run” or a football player could call making it to the 10-yard line a “touchdown”. Changing those definitions would so fundamentally change the sport (or society in marriages case) that doing so is simply unwise and unnecessary.
My solution offered to homosexuals? Stop rocking the boat and demanding that society change it’s definitions just for you. What have you accomplished other than peeving off a large number of people and possibly making actual discrimination a larger problem? Come up with your own word to describe the legal union of a same-sex couple. Call it whatever you want. Take pride in it! Be as creative as we know you are! Relieve the stress of attempting to change society's definitions by just coming up with your own word. Then feel absolutely free to take exception when Tom and Suzy want to muddy the waters by stealing your word and it’s meaning.
Seems fair to me!
For sheer mendacity, you can’t beat the notion that “since male-female marriage is open to both heterosexual as well as homosexual males and females, no one is being discriminated against.” Inasmuch as the denial of the right of same-sexed individuals to marry each other is al that is at issue, it taxes my credulity to think that a literate adult living in the 21st century could be so befuddled as to miss the logical point.
I think I smell some dishonesty here.
Society’s definition of marriage for 5,000 years has been women are chattel. If you want to return to “traditional” marriage” why not just buy your wife or wives, deny them any rights and property ownership and you will have the ideal “traditional”marriage.
If you actually want to progress as a culture, you will evolve over time. Unless of course, you don’t actually believe in evolution.
the arguement is that marriage is a positive in this culture. homosexuality has been deemed legal. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. therefore homosexual’s legality presupposes equality with heterosexuality. particularly when the important thing is not procreation, but being able to provide a loving nurturing home for raising children, which homosexuals do and have opened their homes to rejected and abandoned children of heterosexual unions.
from a christian perspective, believing homsexual marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages. jesus said we would recognize them by their fruit………………fruit of the spirit. the fruit of the spirit of christ being different from the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities……..powers and principalities being those things that believers are called to struggle against.
The entire point of the homosexual movement to subjugate the definition of marriage into something that fits their own viewpoint is to make themselves sound as normal as possible. If it was really for equal rights, then they have access to civil unions, but again that is not what they are after. If they bring marriage down to their level, then it makes them look like anyone else and gives their kind of relationship a feel of normalcy. In fact, there is nothing natural or normal about a homosexual marriage and we need to remember that.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I’m much more a fiscal conservative than a social conservative, and rarely if even ever will I delve into social commentary. I heard the news on my way home from work yesterday about the upcoming court decision and thought I’d throw out something for the masses that is different from the topics I’ll usually concentrate on. Low and behold, that’s the one that finally gets the comments.
I’ll keep it going though…
Bill, what’s the “logical point” I’m missing? Could you please tell me in specific terms what right I, as a heterosexual male, have that a homosexual male does not?
I can’t honestly answer that question.
Season, not denying that for some cultures thoughout history, women have been treated as “chattel” as you say. I agree that was a shame. However, the *actions* taken by men as part of their marriage did not in itself *define* the marriage. You are mixing apples and oranges.
John, I don’t want to get sidetracked here, but the ideal situation for children to grow up in is with a loving father and a loving mother. That is natural. A same sex household has the potential to really screw up a young person’s perception of the world…especially while going through puberty and questioning his/her own sexuality. Kids naturally want to be like their “parents”, and a straight child growing up in a gay household is likely to feel very confused…much like a gay child growing up in a straight household…only much more likely since such a small percentage of the population is gay.
Better a loving household than one torn apart by abuse, hatred, etc? Sure, to an extent I will grant you that…but there is a tradeoff of one set of issues for another.
Homosexuality may be legal, but that still doesn’t change the definition of what marriage is.
If you are trying to say that Jesus supports gay marriage, I think you’d better re-read your Bible.
Larry, Hey man. Thanks for the comment. Um, ditto!
As you know, I had quite a bit to say about this at your Squidoo lens. You also prompted me to blog on you thoughts. So thanks for sharing
Glad I observed this on google .
Congratulations for the awesome blog! Keep going =)
Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your web site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you have on this web site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for extra articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found simply the information I already searched all over the place and just couldn’t come across. What a great web site.
yzGXHR omg loved this stuff
Hey! Great post! Please do tell us when I could see a follow up!
Great one, Still looking for free greates articles, I hope you posted more nice articles again so it will makes the other guys know better than beforethank you very much!