Three Arguments Against Gay Marriage

I'm not going to post too many more times on this topic because I like to keep my posts and my interests fluid in life. Since the religious arguments against gay or same gender marriage are probably more widely known and easier to understand, I found a video on Youtube that explains some of the secular arguments against gay marriage, made by a legal scholar speaking at UC Berkeley. As usual, if my esteemed readers are too lazy to watch the video, I summarize the content briefly in my comments below.





The gentleman in this video presents three basic secular arguments in this video against gay marriage.

1. Gay marriage is radical: Heterosexual marriage has been the norm for our society since its inception. Moreover, nearly every society in the world, and in the world's history, has embraced some form of heterosexual marriage while very few have ever embraced homosexual marriage. The gentleman also points out that the right to marriage, especially gay marriage is not present under the "positivist" view of the law (in other words, the right is never specifically mentioned as existing in the constitution). Thus, in order to transform the institution of traditional marriage, gay marriage advocates have the "burden of proof" in explaining why society should accept gay marriage.

I agree with this point wholeheartedly.

2. Gay marriage is risky: Because gay marriage is such a radical departure from past ideals and institutions present in our society, the consequences of instituting this new right will likely be difficult to predict. I covered some of the ripple effects that could potentially occur from gay marriage in both a serious and humorous way in a couple of my previous posts. The speaker also states that a transition away from marriage may have been partially responsible for the fall of Roman society.

While I agree with the basic premise of his arguments (and have posted both serious and humorous supporting material), I would like to see more support for his idea about a change away from traditional marriage being a partial cause of the decline and fall of Roman civilization. While the idea is interesting, to my knowledge it isn't a commonly known idea or fact and needs to be substantiated heavily before I can accept it.

3. Gay marriage is a departure from the norm: The speaker argues in this video that gay relationship comprise only a small minority of all relationships that exist in society. The speaker then argues that the three options for this situation are: prohibition, tolerance, and acceptance. The speaker then argues against the latter because, although some gay people are good people, the characteristics of the group -- including high rates of infidelity and STD infection rates -- are undesirable.

I agree with this point as well. Unfortunately, if gay marriage is ultimately legalized, I can see a very plausible future where traditional marriage is no longer the norm in our society, as I have mentioned in an earlier post.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cardinal: High court wrong to uphold gay marriage (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Same-sex marriage will hurt families, society (cnn.com)
• Cardinal criticizes Mexico's high court for upholding law allowing gay marriages in capital (foxnews.com)

Happy Family:

Is the Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh a Radical? Hardly.

As most of you know I have been following the crisis within the community of monastics following the teachings of the Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh in Vietnam. The Western news organization, "The Guardian" quoted some of his followers in that Southeast Asian country. These monastics made the statement that their tradition is radical. "The Guardian" though didn't seem to investigate why or what made them say their tradition was "radical." It then assumed that this must mean that Thich Nhat Hanh is a radical. However, they missed the context by a mile. I'd expect the Vietnamese Communist government to say such but not a Western news outlet who should know better. It's lazy journalism.

Here's the context: The Zen tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh might be radical in Vietnam where the iron-fisted government maintains strict control over the actions of religious organizations. However,it's not radical in free societies like the U.S. and France where Nhat Hanh is most established. So calling their beliefs "radical" must be taken in the context of what radical means in a dictatorial country like Vietnam.

The full quote from the monastics was, "The followers, who describe their monastery as the 'most radical and fastest growing' in Vietnam, say the authorities regard Nhat Hanh as a threat to their tight control over religious observance.

James: They clearly missed that important distinction even though it was lying right in front of them in their own quote!! Perhaps the distinction was implied but that's still misleading and confusing to those who aren't aware of Thich Nhat Hanh or his order. The way it reads makes it appear as if Nhat Hanh is some warrior monk, which couldn't be further from the truth. Thich Nhat Hanh is a peaceful, loving, kind, compassionate, non-violent devotee to the Buddhadharma. That hardly makes him a "radical" in the eyes of most people around the world. I hope, "The Guardian" realizes their mistake and corrects it in the future because the idea of a skinny, 82 year old Zen Buddhist monk being a radical except in the eyes of the paranoid Vietnamese government is laughable. When I think of radical I think of those anarchists who protest G-20 meetings and other international summits/conferences.

Can you picture Thich Nhat Hanh manning the barricades, wearing a gas mask and throwing Molotov Cocktails at police and military personnel? So when a Western news agency labels Thay a "radical" they are making a factual mistake. However, what's worse is that they are creating undo suspicion of a man many consider to be one of the most positive, beneficial and serene beings to walk the Earth today. In fact the world would be an even better place with many more "radicals" like him.

~Peace to all beings~