Back to the same-sex issue. This is an issue of difference of morals. This is not about skin-color or gender or other natural, physical differences. This is about a moral difference. Same-sex couples must accept the fact that many people, in the fact, the majority of U.S. citizens, have a different set of morals then they do. It is not discriminatory. It is a fact they must accept.
Think of it this way. Say there are no absolute morals (I hope it's clear I do not believe this is true). It is all relative. We each individually choose our set of moral beliefs. So, same-sex couples have theirs, which of course support their practices. Traditional religious groups have theirs, which support only the traditional view of marriage. From a moral relativist standpoint, if same-sex marriage is banned, then same-sex couples are being discriminated against. Yet if same-sex marriage is allowed and religions must accept them (properties are open to the weddings, adoption agencies must adopt to same-sex couples), then religious groups are being discriminated against. One party or the other will have to sacrifice something. This is equality?
Say there is an absolute morality. Now the question is, how do we determine it? How do we decide if same-sex marriage is moral? This is the big question that makes this all so difficult. How do we determine what is moral? Can we turn to God? Many would say no because they do not believe in God. Do we turn to the practices of society for the much of recorded history? Well, there have been different understandings of marriage throughout history. Perhaps more damaging to this attempt is that many practices (slavery being a prime example) which were accepted for millennia but we do not consider moral today.
Not to say that there isn't an answer. I suggest that we look to what will create the most stable and long-lasting society. There is a lot to discuss and think about along these lines. I am not providing a complete argument here. But I believe it is common sense to promote heterosexual marriage. Only a man and a woman can have a child. Girls and boys are fundamentally different, not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Some would argue this. I wonder if they have ever spent time around boys and girls, though. From what I've observed of my nieces and nephews growing up, as well as the little I've read from philosophers and sociologists, it is blatantly obvious that boys and girls are different from the very beginning.
The ideal is that boys will grow up to be men and girls will grow up to be women. "Duh," you may say. But think about a few things. There are unique problems that girls face that two fathers would have difficulty helping their daughter get through. It doesn't matter how many books they have read, they have not experienced it and cannot provide the empathy a mother can provide. There are, of course, many other examples. Boys and girls are fundamentally different and the ideal is that every boy and girl has a man and a woman to guide and direct them through their development.
The fundamental differences in the man and woman, the mother and father, are vital for the children as well. I value highly the compassion my mother has taught me that I could not have learned in the same way from my father. My father has taught me how to be a man and how to deal with certain situations my mother would have difficulty helping me through. I can turn to my father and discuss with him subjects it would be difficult to discuss with my mother. These differences come from the fact that my father is a man - he is like me. My mother is a woman - she is different from me.
Like I said, I don't have time to fully develop these ideas. One more paragraph and I need to wrap up. Some would say that there are many children of single parents who turn out just fine. True, but how many children prefer this situation to having the mother or father they never had? Why should the non-ideal help us determine the ideal? Why should the failings of society determine how we shape our society? Those single parents have done incredible things and should be honored. But does that mean we just need to aim for single-parent households? Though there are successes, I feel it is common sense (common sense is not a very good argument, so research for yourself) from the things I have already written and more that a two parent-household, consisting of a mother and a father, is the ideal. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot accomplish the same thing.
I desire a strong and stable society. Society rests upon the foundation of the family. We should make that foundation as solid and stable as possible. A mother, father, and children is the ideal. There are those who have difficulty meeting this ideal. We should love them and help them. We should not hate them, ridicule them, reject them. But it is not love to weaken that foundation and change the ideal for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment