"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. United States really boosts about freedom,rights, liberty, justice etc, however why are those same rights not given to gay couples? why don't gay couples recieve the same rights that a traditional married couple gets? it's a shame that we live in a country where such a thing exists. there is no equality, freedom or justice. the truth is that the very foundations of this country is a lie. So Isn't the Declaration of Independence really contradicting itself here?
Similar entries
User login
Like This Site?
If you would like to see ProgressiveU continue to grow, why not donate?
Have You Seen This Yet?
Recent blog posts
- Not just because they don't want you to get high...
- Mai Evolving Understanding of the Nautre of Healing
- Unemployment vs. Un-willing-to-employ
- What would you do?
- Comics and Cartoons as a Source of Cultural History in the United States, Part 2
- A Healthy Dose of Ethics: Where does YOUR blood come from?
- Looking for a ProgressiveU Podcast Partner!
- The Snow Walker: A Review
- Twilightmania, Geekdom, and Other Random Things
- When the soldier came back home
Navigation
Who's online
There are currently 4 users and 288 guests online.
Online users
- chillbill
- blackout
- jackbenimble
- bleedingheart
Progressive U Features
Poll
Do you agree with the decision to try suspects linked to 9/11 in New York?
Yes
29%
No
38%
Undecided
19%
No opinion
14%
Total votes: 21
Vote
The Gay and Striaght marriges are different for reasons far beyond our Constitution. Afformentioned, "traditional" marriges; consists of a Man courting and bewedding a woman. This holds truth for all countries, not just the United States.
There are dozens of historical cultures that have recognized same-sex marriages. Several of the most interesting were actually found right here on the North American continent. One excellent example of this were the Zuni tribe's lhamana (men raised as women), who not only took men as husbands, but were actually afforded a special, spiritual significance in the tribe. The Zuni are one of the most studied Native American cultures in the literature, in no small part because of this fact. In 1886, the United States even welcomed an lhamana--known as We'wha--as a Zuni Princess and representative of her people. We'wha was biologically male, but culturally female, and yes, she was married to a bilogically (and culturally) male member of the tribe. Here are some pictures...
http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/wewha.html
There are of course many other examples, upon which I would be happy to expound at length if wish to become better informed.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
Many of the rights or privileges afforded to couples in traditional marriages are there to promote child rearing. Gay couples seldom have their own children, though that seems to be changing more and more. It’s in our country’s best interest for couples to build families and raise children.
Why are married couples given rights & privileges that I can’t have as a single person?
Shouldn’t everyone have the same rights, married, single, gay or straight?
Maybe things should be changed so just parents, gay or straight, married or not get the benefits now provided to married people & not just straight couples who are married.
This argument doesn't really hold water for one simple reason that you give us yourself...
"Gay couples seldom have their own children, though that seems to be changing more and more."
The fact is that our laws already reflect the fact that de facto parents need the same protections for their relationships to their children that biological parents and their kids enjoy. The same rights and legal weight is already given to adoptive and step-parenting relationships. If it is true that the goal of the marriage laws is to obstensibly provide protection for the parent-child relaitonship, then the fact that there are a significant number of gay couples with kids would seem to be sufficient justification to recognize these relationships.
Even so, I personally think that this argument is often used as a red herring in the marriage-equality debate for one simple reason. There is not ONE law in this country that requires a heterosexual couple to demonstrate the intention or even the ability to procreate as a pre-requisite for received a marriage license. Nor is there ANY right or priviledge associated with the marriage relationship itself which is contingent upon a couple having a child. Nor is there ANY right or priviledge associated with the parent-child relationships that is contingent on the marital status of the parents.
In fact, both heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction AS WELL AS couples who are capable but who never intend to do so are regularly granted marriage licenses without question or comment in the law.
The marriage laws do reflect the value of stable families to our society, but that value is (already) not uniquely applied to biologically child-bearing couples. As such, there is no valid purpose to restrict the marriage rights of same-sex couples, and in fact our own Supreme Court has long since recognized that...
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." ~ Loving v. Virgina (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
My "argument" was more a reflection on why the special rights were granted in the first place & pointing out how more and more they are without merit.
For some reason I still have a problem calling the union of a gay couple a "marriage". To me it just seems like something different somehow. I say this even though a couple of my good friends are a gay couple who have been together for 20+ years.
Programming in my younger years I would guess.
The freedom to marry is fundamental civil right in this country. There is nothing "special" about a gay couple wishing to exercise the rights that are supposed to be afforded to all all adult citizens.
As for your problem with using the term "marriage," why does it bother you? By any definitionally consistent application, "marriage" is the correct term for these relationships. Your discomfort is irrelevant. Heterosexual people do not "own" the word "marriage."
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)