This is a blog I wrote on myspace a couple months ago.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
I just watched the Pat Roberson interview on the 700 club where he expresses his concerns about the hate crime bill and that it isn’t specific enough. And also his concerns that if Gay Marriage is accepted, if we accept that, what’s next? Where does one draw the line?
To illustrate, he explained that there are over 30 different alternative lifestyles one could subscribe to, and if we open this door, what is to keep the others out? He used ‘sex with ducks’ as an example to show how crazy this whole thing could get. And one could follow his logic! I mean, if we say we accept marriage in anything other than one man and one woman, how are we to prevent someone from marrying a donkey and then demanding the same legal rights as a man and a woman who are married??
On the surface, one could really roll with this one.
But here’s the logic killer on that argument: Marriage requires consent. You can’t have consent between a human being and an animal.
I would like to also state that marriage requires ADULT consent, which would really drive the point home. But unfortunately that is not always the case; it varies from state to state on what the legal age is for marriage. But certainly in this country “children” under 16 can’t be wed. The idea that accepting gay marriage would suddenly open the door for pedophiles is absurd; I know of no state in this country that allows CHILDREN (under 16) to get married, and certainly no responsible citizen would vote to try and change that. This is not a “rights” issue, nor a religioius or moral one; it is simply an issue of ensuring our citizens are mature enough to make decisions of that magnitude on their own behalf.
(We could easily solve this societal problem of 16 year olds getting married, however, by stating that one can’t enter into marriage until they are legal adults—like is true with most other legal contracts. I FULLY believe that would be smart. But this isn’t a “gay” issue, it is an issue of determining when one of our citizens is old enough to make this important decision and be recognized by society, and has nothing to do with sexual preferences.)
I watched the “sex with ducks” video parody that followed on the heels of Pat’s comments—HILARIOUS!! OMG, if you haven’t seen it you should, google it.
But I fear that even though the video is funny, it doesn’t really speak to the core of the argument that Robertson was trying to make, and a lot of folks may not get it. Lots of people seem to jump on the “if we do this, what next” argument. I hope that people step back, look at the logic, and understand that CONSENT is the thing.
Conservatives and Liberals alike believe that government has no business wading into the life choices of consenting adults, as long as those choices don’t hurt others.
Conservatives and liberals alike believe in separation of church and state, so that one can practice their own religious beliefs themselves (as long as they don’t trample others), and that government better not try and step in and regulate those beliefs people hold.
But marriage doesn’t have to happen in a church. It can happen with a Justice of the Peace and be a legally binding contract recognized by society.
So ….what’s that argument Pat Robertson was trying to make again?