Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Rights, right?

If I say that the Prop 8 argument is about "rights" we would then be entering into a philosophical conversation, right? (It’s my blog, so I say yes) Right: So I begin with some questions: What are we entitled to, that can not be denied, and ultimately makes us all equal? Certain inalienable rights apply, and are truly constitutional. Like it or not, the US constitution was founded upon and drafted fully in the presence of men who firmly lived Judeo-Christian values. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…right? Is marriage an equality issue? Not at all, marriage is a choice rooted in religion, some would argue marriage was designed and is ordained by God. It certainly isn’t an inalienable right.

You may believe you can “choose” to be religious or not, and that choice has a specific set of guidelines you are to follow while calling your self religious. You can also "choose" to get married just as you can "choose" to be gay (save me the murky arguments about this undiscovered Gay gene, then why do people become un-gay? does the gene go away?). By making these choices, you are accepting some generally agreed upon operating guidelines, which are pretty well known. Choices are by no means rights, or constitutionally protected. If I chose to be married I let go of my ‘singleness’, I chose to be with my wife from this day forward forsaking all others, etc. If I chose to be gay, I accept that I may lose the opportunity to be married in a Church, I also chose to align myself with a minority group that can face adversity.

Here’s the deal: If we go around and label a choice as a right, then what happens when the choice sparks a new group whose choices translate into a new set of rights? Then what we are saying is, one’s rights are determined by the mere existence of any group that can rationalize choice, no matter how that group’s existence is viewed by the majority of society.

The homosexual community looks to challenge the definition of marriage by changing it from 1-man and 1-woman into 2-people; ironically by doing that, they in fact still leave a definition that would be an exclusion to any 3-people who want to get married. However, ask a homosexual group about it’s stance on that subject and you will hear that it is not valid. Where’s the tolerance for polygamist groups ;-) Laughably, the thought of 2 or more nagging wives is amusing…but that’s another rant for another time. I personally could not afford more than one wife, think about the unimaginable increase in toilet paper usage…but I digress.

How is it that a one group can change the definition for their subset, but not for others that want a more liberal definition taken into consideration? This is precisely why religion and politics are kept out of public schools; a subset of individuals can not monopolize rights that are certain, with rights that a particular group chooses to adopt. Poor kids are confused enough with high school stuff, like proms (ever try pinning a boutonniere on yourself?) Again, I digress.

It begs me to ask; where does it end? If everything is ok, then what is no longer ok? Society is not obligated to offer every single amenity offered to any individual to all individuals.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when we become all too “politically correct”. When we lose our moral compass, stop listening to tried and true principles of our faiths, our founding forefathers, and begin to follow our hearts rather than our minds. Let’s be honest with ourselves, “All progress begins by telling the truth” –Lou Cassara.

At the very least, look at your history book and begin to analyze the fall of Rome. People relied on the government for all of their services, and grew increasingly dependant. Government was so big it could not afford itself, nor afford to protect itself, and then…you get the picture.

I have grown weary of everything having to be politicized. Hence my lack of blogging lately. This moral and ethical argument is a non-point anymore; laws are created to favor the majority viewpoint. Politics are played to sway groups to form a majority opinion. The tool is the media and he with the bigger wallet (translated to media buying power) usually wins. This is how you force a minority “issue”, regardless of its moral and ethical standing, into a popular opinion contest.

No comments: