Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The Value of Definition (Prop 8.1)

This whole idea, and argument, of "marriage" and "equal rights" comes down to "definition". The real question is.... are we drilling down far enough in our questioning? Or, are motives simply to get what a group wants? That is not "necessarily" a bad thing, but can be a dangerous, slippery slope. Who "defines" the idea or concept of marriage, and where did we get this idea or concept from? Is the concept biblical / of God? Or, did man originate it? Simply, a guy / gal can say... "I want my dog to be my life mate." Nothing can prevent that freedom. I can have my dog as my life partner and no one could argue otherwise. However, to ask to legally wed that dog (don't read into "dog". I could've used "cat".) would mean to RE-DEFINE the original idea. Although, from a Christian standpoint, I do not / cannot support homosexuality ...that is nearly a completely separate topic from what is under debate in California as we speak, I CAN, without any contradiction, support two peoples' freedom and decision for that lifestyle. Why? Because there is nothing "constitutionally" against it. They are free, under man's law, in that decision. But, to take that freely decisive union and request a constitutionally legal "marriage" (again, who / what originally defined "marriage") is explicitly asking to re-define an original definition it not? It's like me wanting to change my citizenship to legally state that I am a citizen of the nation of "Bob". Well, that is simply inaccurate, and simply defies what is constitutionally and legally accurate / true about my own citizenship; regardless of what I "say". I can walk around all day long and say.... "I am a citizen of the United States of Bob." No one can "prevent" me from saying so. They can only disagree. But if I wish to utilize the "benefits" of being a citizen of the United States of America .....why would I be intent on saying I am a citizen of the United States of Bob? It simply defies logic. Furthermore, why would I even "want" to reap benefits of an idea / ideal which I fundamentally oppose? By saying I am of "Bob", would I not be disagreeing with the idea of being American? So, the only available alternatives are (1)to accept the idea / law as it was originally intended by the author(s) or (2)request that very idea / law be "changed". THAT (option 2) is where we walk on a very, very slippery slope! If we choose to change / re-define .....where does that end? We've effectively pulled the rug from under ourselves. Original definition no longer has any value. Moreover "we" have the liberty to presume to change what is already defined?