Broken Daughters

Picking up the shattered glass of fundamentalism

Gay marriage and pedophilia?!


Among other things, I am pro gay marriage. This is mainly because I honestly and genuinely do not care the least bit whom my friends and, more importantly, people I do not know nor will ever meet, are married to. I simply do not feel affected by the fact that two men in Maine are married and live together in a nice picket fence house. I don’t care if they live across the street from me either, or in the same apartment building. I do not care if one of my friends is married to a man or a woman, because it isn’t any of my business. I make my own choices in this matter and I don’t think it’s anybody else’s business who I’m dating, or marrying, or whatever. Live and let live, to be accurate. Why would I get upset that two men want to get married by law?

Sure you might throw in some economical and social issues here: That gay men can’t have children together and therefore shouldn’t have the advantage of paying less tax because they’re married, or have cheaper health care rates, or whatever. But on a more realistic note: How many couples are there who do not want any kids, ever, or simply cannot have kids. It would only be fair to families with children that these couples pay as much tax as if they were unmarried, right? Once you step on the area of social and economic issues, the ground gets shaky. Let’s not even go there.

I understand that churches don’t want to perform gay marriages and that’s perfectly fine. Hey, it’s your religion, do as you please. But the state, the law should give every single citizen the chance to make his or her own choices and be treated accordingly.

Now, there’s a lot of rage going on in the christian world against gay marriage. That’s alright, but you get your freedom of religion, let others have that too. The christians are still an important force in the fact that gay people are prohibited certain choices in life.

You are not allowed to be married because you don’t want to marry the opposite gender. That’s freedom right there. What happened to the legendary pursuit of happiness? That’s only allowed if you conform to the standard.

I even understand people who have doubts about the socioeconomic consequences. Really, I do. But you have to realize that allowing gay marriage will not “make” more people gay. The percentage stays the same. Gay couples are just as productive to a nation as any other couple who doesn’t have kids – or no biological kids for that matter, since gays might still adopt one if they wish. Plus, this logic doesn’t apply in all cases! I know that many lesbian couples, in fact, do have biological kids. It’s no problem for them at all. I have even heard of one couple who ended up actually having sex with a man in order to get pregnant because they couldn’t afford artificial methods. Sure this isn’t for everyone, but matter of fact gay couples do have biological kids. Likewise, a male gay couple might just as well find a biological mother (and maybe a surrogate mother as well) and have biological kids – may it be through natural or artificial methods. It’s simply not true that gay couples don’t contribute by not having kids. And, as I said, there are just as well heterosexual couples who don’t have any. If you go down the road of social and economical value of a couple, you might as well punish every couple who doesn’t have kids by not allowing them to marry. I suppose every couple fill out a contract that forces them to have at least 2 kids within the next 5 years. If they do not, they’ll be automatically divorced. How’s that sound?

But moving on the my actual point: It creeps me out, it disgusts me, how any living person could compare gay marriage to pedophilia.

To quote Answers in Genesis on that matter:

The majority in power in many of our Western societies once believed the institution of marriage should be one man for one woman. But this has changed. Many are now allowing “gay marriage.” So how long before polygamous or pedophiliac relationships are allowed, which some people are starting to advocate? Who is to say they are wrong, if the majority agrees with them? (Full article here)

I also think it’s wrong to compare polygamous relationships to pedophilia, but that’s a different subject.

What’s being done here is lining up forms of relationships that are formed between two (or more) consenting adults to a form of “relationship” in which one adult in some sort of position of authority over a minor who is, by law and by developement, not in a position to consent. The first two forms are an agreement between adults, the last one is a form of child abuse by pressuring him or her into doing things he knows nothing about, with consequences he or she can’t understand yet, by making him or her believe “it’s ok”, “just don’t tell anybody”, it’s “their secret”. How can you possibly put that on one level?

It’s funny how suddenly supposed wrong behaviour in adults is made equal to certainly wrong behaviour (towards children). It’s especially funny to me because to those very same people, violence and physical abuse are two different things depending on whether the victim is a minor (and related to you) or an adult. Beating your children with spoons and belts is right, doing the same to your wife is wrong. Why differentiate here when you don’t differentiate sexual relationships? Why is two consenting adults having sex just as bad as having sex with children?

I get the point that sin is sin is sin, and in that matter they might be right, it might be viewed as “just as bad”, but so is stealing and envying your neighbor for his beautiful cow. But, speaking strictly from a point of view that puts freedom and equality of each and every citizen as the focus, gay marriage is NOT like sexual abuse. And the fact, the mere fact that you would publish a sentence such as the one I quoted above, and put this material into young people’s minds, that’s irresponsible and disgusting.

Have not enough people suffered and died because they were gay? Must you put them in a place where they are just as bad as people who sexually abuse girls and boys? What’s going to happen if these gay people end up being in a place where they are at mercy of maniacs who believe they are just as bad as child abusers? They’re going to hate them, beat them, and in some places on the planet, stone them. It’s done, just read the news.

Oh my, I can’t tell you how much these things upset me. We all scream for more freedom, consider us as people who live in countries of freedom. Not everybody here is free, nor will ever be. But, bah, can’t we at least try?

(I wrote this post a while ago and just now remembered it after I read one of Melissa’s recent posts. It’s not connected in any way and I don’t mean to associate her or her story with it. I simply remembered because she’s saying the same thing about gay rights and I think that’s something that needs to be said. Anyway, I encourage you to read her posts, I was very touched by her honesty and courage. How many people would’ve just given up? Sounds cliché, but Melissa is a role model for me – and so is her husband.)


3 thoughts on “Gay marriage and pedophilia?!

  1. “I make my own choices in this matter and I don’t think it’s anybody else’s business who I’m dating, or marrying, or whatever. Live and let live, to be accurate.” I TOTALLY agree with this. Right on, sista!! Call me a nut-job, but here is where I don’t agree: “Why would I get upset that two men want to get MARRIED BY LAW?”

    It is the “by law” part that troubles me. Personally, I do not believe government should have anything to do with regulating marriage. Any person has the right to make a contractual agreement with another. Any person or group of people have a right to establish their own religious organizations with their own creeds and laws and agreements/covenants. Why on EARTH should our government control and regulate such a thing. That is giving other PEOPLE, elected or otherwise, the right to control personal lives. Marriage is a private affair!!

    I know, I know, so married people can get their mandated health care and benefits packages, tax deductions, etc. But why not just live and let live in that area, too? Why mandate more goodies for people who make one choice over those who make another choice? Why tax differently based on a person’s personal choices rather than objectively on how many expenses and dependents they have? Why mandate AT ALL? But seriously if we just let businesses offer what packages they will offer to the married, unmarried, polygamous, or whatever, and then let people decide whether they will trade their work services to the business in return, then we have mutual consent without the government telling folks what they must or must not do to be offered this or that benefit, and businesses would have to compete a little more for good workers. You want a better benefits package, then make yourself more valuable in the job market! You want better employees for your business, then broaden your benefits packages to make the jobs more valuable.

    I realize my Libertarian leanings are coming out on this, but seriously, when you put the government in charge of regulating something as basic as the religious institutions and contractual agreements between private individuals, then you put PEOPLE (whether they be on the right or the left, and that is ALWAYS changeing) in charge of making decisions over people’s personal lives that they have no business making. Whether I believe it is right or wrong, sin or virtue, I believe in letting others make their own choices, WITHOUT government sanction or interference, as long as they are not violating MY rights or the rights of another. In my opinion, that is the crux of true freedom and the only way that ANYONE’S freedom will be preserved, including those who would have 20 kids and homeschool them all on $15,000 a year. There are those on the right (like Santorum!!) and those on the left who would pass all kinds of laws to limit others’ freedoms according to their own personal leanings. Not Ok. Regulating marriage/personal agreements/religious institutions is not within the scope of governmental power in a truly free society, in my opinion. I know there are plenty on either side of the debate who do not agree with this, but in a truly live-and-let-live society, I see no other way.

    • I never thought about it this way, you’ve got a good point there actually!
      You know, the law is even more complicated in Germany. I’m pretty upset with the way marriage is handled because I think it’s just retarded. You can get married in a religious ceremony – but then you’re not married in front of the law. It’s like you’re still single because religious ceremonies count for nothing here. It’s kind of like… the government totally disconnects from the religious aspects of the citizen’s life. I mean yeah, it’s none of their business what I do for my religious life anyway, but to see them so removed from it that my religious ceremony doesn’t count? That’s mostly annoying because to be married in front of the law, you have to get a marriage licence and then have a meeting where you will be asked if it’s your free will to enter the “contract”. It’s handled very much like a business contract, which, I suppose, it is at the end of the day. But still, I think it’s highly unromantic and rather annoying that you have to get married twice (unless you don’t care for a religious ceremony). On the other hand that’s why gay marriage works here – the churches won’t do it, but the marriage licence and the “contracting” don’t have anything to do with religion.

      I absolutely agree that religion shouldn’t have anything to do with the government.
      I especially despise people who argue along the lines of America as the “new israel” or simply say that it’s a christian nation because of the slogan “in God we trust”. There’s two ways to solve this problem: Either 1. America is a christian nation and therefore does not deserve to be called the country of absolute religious freedom or 2. there is absolute religious freedom, hence America can’t be “one nation under God”. You can discuss all you want who “God” is in those slogans, but at the end of the day, you have to decide on which side you want to stand.
      And then, of course, there are the christians who *think* they are pro religious freedom, but are actually not because they believe, among others, gays shouldn’t have the right to marry.
      Looking back I knew so many of these people, but today all I want to tell them is “Look, I KNOW you don’t want religious freedom. You want that freedom ONLY for christians like you. Not for muslims, or buddhists, or atheists. Just finally admit to it and stand by what you imply”.
      It’s so sad that after over 400 years of national history, people have long forgotten what it really comes down to – You can’t pick and chose who gets their freedom and who doesn’t. But then again, I consider “freedom” something that can’t be reached anyway. As soon as there’s more than 1 person (and that is the case worldwide), you have to make rules, limit one person’s freedom to make sure another person is protected in their rights. It’s al muddy waters.

      • Uh, oh. Now you’re sounding a little Libertarian yourself. Wouldn’t your family freak out????

        I leave you with a summation of Voltaire’s take on freedom (as written in “The Friends of Voltaire”): “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

        That, in my opinion, is what TRUE tolerance is. It is not being forced to call right what I cannot believe to be right or even to associate with those whose lifestyles I do not approve of, but merely to defend the RIGHTS of a person to make his or her own choices, regardless of my opinion of those choices. That is the golden rule! I think that both sides of the political spectrum often have a warped view of true tolerance and freedom, but I DO believe that true freedom can exist if the population would demand it and then accept it. But there are too many, both left and right, who want to control the personal choices and private lives of others and impose their own ideas of “right,” even falsely invoking the cause of “freedom” in order to squelch personal liberty.

        Keep in mind, true freedom has room for strict fundamentalists as well as the flamboyantly gay (and everyone else, too), though neither side has to approve of the other or even choose to associate with one another. They must just not infringe on one another’s rights to be who they are or ask anyone else to take resposibility for someone else’s choices. Seriously, this is Bill of Rights 101! Ok, now I sound like I’m channeling Ron Paul LOL! Thanks for this post. It definitely is fertile ground for thought and discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s