Alice Answers
(TM)
on the web
Your on-line information source for advice on:
Personal Development
Mental Wellness
Taking Charge of Your Life
Recommended Reading and Resources
|
Alice Answers
(TM)
Your on-line information source for advice on: |
| ... |
Contents |
.
Question #1 for October:
Question #1 for October:
----- Original Message ----- Dear Alice, I just finished reading your reply to the question about same sex marriages and whether they should be legalized. I am not at all sure that I understand your rationale nor do I think that you have a very good grasp of it yourself. It is not the fact that your thinking is romantic as much as it is delusional. It is true that men and women are physically and emotionally different, and to the degree that it fits into the western idea of marriage I see where that would add to the union of mates,but the fact that almost half of the heterosexual couples in the United States have been divorced, cheat on their mates, abuse their spouse or their children, or are spiritually or emotionally stagnated by their relationship, paints an altogether different picture from the beautiful duet dance. Whether the ordination of this union was intended to bring about such harmony or not,the facts are clear that though opposites attract in scientific arenas, they don't always mesh in the arenas of sex or marriage. Either way, your ideas hardly bring about a rationale for the State sanction of marriage, which is an altogether different concept. By legalizing same sex marriages in the United States, we are asking for the same Federal Rights that should be ours as citizens of the United States. This is not a question of religion it is a question of moral obligation of the State. My tax dollars go to support you and your family and the community in which you live. My taxes will support you, your spouse ,and your kids in the years to come. I add to the community through my commitment to the development of my neighborhood, by my involvement with my church, my community, my society , and my relationship with my mate. I celebrate the commitment of those who choose to become a family, by accepting the legal sanctions that marriage affords them. To deny that same sanction to others based on the belief that one union is more acceptable then another goes against the very principles on which this nation was founded. The fact that most people came to this country to escape religious persecution makes this reasoning even more solid. Alice Answers: Hi (name removed), Thank you for your thoughts and comments. I find it interesting that you give statistics for the success rate of heterosexual unions but conspicuously omit the statistics for the longevity of homosexual unions. The truth is that mental illness, abuse, and dysfunction abound in human relationships, heterosexual or homosexual. This is a sad thing, but it does not validate the argument for one type relationship over the other, or the dissolution of human relationships altogether. It seems somewhat hopeless and futile to say that ideals are delusional. Being delusional would involve a loss of touch with reality, and I would argue that I am very much in touch with reality. The very freedom we enjoy in this country to share this lively debate and exchange of ideas came about because of high ideals, which probably seemed delusional to some at the time. I think we must not abandon our hopes, dreams, and ideals because there are ugly realities we must face. If we did, we would never be able to change reality - which can be done, I've seen it. The problem is that real change usually occurs slowly. It is like building a building, one brick at a time, and most Americans want instant gratification. Relationships, heterosexual or homosexual are difficult, they require work. This never ends because as people change, grow, and evolve, so must the relationship. Many people are unwilling to do this work. Many enter relationships hoping to be able to become "comfortably numb" do not seek to grow as individuals or with a partner. These people will inevitably become disappointed when the honeymoon ends and the need for work begins, many would rather start anew in the hopes that the next relationship will be better, but it never will, not without work. Your statement about the "Western idea of marriage" is primarily the idea throughout the world, and in most religions. According to my copy of the Constitution of the United States there is no Federal Control over the bonds of matrimony, nor do I think there should be. Of the twenty seven amendments, Amendment X comes the closest and reads such "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that it is up to the people of each state of the union to establish such laws and regulations as they see fit, so long as the Federal Constitution is not violated. Your "Federal Rights" are not being treated any differently from mine or any other citizen of this country. My advice to you would respectfully be that if you wish to legally marry your partner, move to a state which has sanctioned such unions under civil law, or petition your state to follow suit. By following the founder's true intent, we leave this decision at a local or state level. The founders were justly concerned with the encroachment of power on a national level. In the present day, we have been conditioned to believe that the Federal government has a role where it does not, at least when reading the constitution with the frame of reference of the founders. I have begun to believe that most Americans have never read the United Sates Constitution and therefore do not understand what the document is all about. You claim that it is the moral obligation of the State, this seems determined by the morality of the people of each state. Morality is defined as "capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct" (Webster). The principals upon which this country was founded are Christian in nature. These are basic principals which form the beliefs, practices, and expectations of the society. This does not mean that any other religions, beliefs, or practices are to be excluded, but the basic operating principals are Christian. I'm somewhat offended by your statement that your tax dollars go to support me and my family, this seems a stretch. It might be true if I lived on welfare, or availed myself of social programs, which I do not. If you wish to argue in this fashion, then my tax dollars support you as well. Furthermore, the property taxes my husband and I pay for our home goes to fund public schools, which we do not benefit from, since we pay tuition to send our child to a private religious school. I realize that this is a choice we make, but the point remains. I think we can safely say that we cancel each other out in this regard, and I likely contribute to my community as much as you do to yours. I applaud you in your efforts to better society through your many activities and endeavors. I celebrate all loving, productive relationships which provide opportunities for the personal and spiritual growth of the partners. I would not discourage you from your relationship, I just don't think I should have to change my moral standards to sanction it. I do not believe it is the role of the Federal government to sanction it, as I noted earlier, this is a state's rights issue. I think that as someone who believes as you do, you should attempt to have the laws in your state changed. Naturally, as someone who believes as I do, I will oppose such efforts in my state. In no circumstances is such an issue (or many other issues where the Federal government meddles) a matter for Federal Government control. You seem to me to be a reasonable, intelligent person and I think you would agree with me that a line must be drawn somewhere. My question to you is this, where should that line be drawn? Is the line drawn before tolerance of polygamy, or is it drawn before tolerance of incest? Is the line drawn before tolerance of drastically lowering the legal "age of consent" so that adults would be free to have sex with children? I hope you see my point, I think you do. God gave us basic rules to live by for a reason, it's called the unchanging state of human nature. Certain things are strictly forbidden, if any person chooses to go against those rules, it is between that person and God. Even for those whose beliefs are different, or for whom there is no God, basic rules have come into existence because of human nature and what is generally for the good of societies. Again, I thank you for your thoughts and comments. I have enjoyed the opportunity to have this discussion with you and invite further thoughts you may have on this or any other topic. Sincerely, Alice
|
| ... |
.
Last updated on November 22, 2001. AliceAnswers and AliceAnswers.com are trademarks of Alice M. Edwards. In addition, the entire contents of this site are copyright (c) 2001 by Alice M. Edwards unless otherwise noted; and can not be used, except for review purposes, without the written permission of Alice M. Edwards |