Definitions offered to support Prop 8
Lyndsey Amen
Issue date: 11/14/08 Section: Opinion
Let me begin by saying that I will in no way attempt to argue my perspective on gay marriage from a stance of religious preference or moral obligation. I do not feel that it is my duty to impose my morality upon the public, and the question at stake should not be - in my opinion - one of morality but simply of definition and historicity.
My issue is not your religious preference, your moral convictions and so on but the simple fact that the definition of marriage is in question. While I realize that many people may argue that this is merely an issue of semantics, I think not. The etymology of the word marry comes from the Latin word maritare which means "to wed, marry, give in marriage" and also from the words maritus and marita meaning husband and wife respectively. Thus, the very derivation of the word implies the joining of opposite sexes.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Even in the days of ancient Rome when homosexuality was quite common, men still married women and had sexual affairs with men. You may argue that perhaps they did not marry men because it was socially taboo; however, this is not the case. The homosexual ritual of "paiderastia" meaning "boy love" was actually a regular practice in which an older man would take a younger man as his pupil and lover. Even still, the two did not join together in matrimony but rather had a mutually benefiting relationship without the necessity for marriage.
In conclusion, regarding the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California I share similar views with our president-elect. Obama is openly opposed to gay marriage and believes that marriage is between one man and woman. However, in an interview with MTV regarding Proposition 8, he stated, "I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary." I agree as I think the concept of marriage should not be one that the government should be able to expand or limit. The definition of marriage already exists and it is not the role of the government to redefine words, but rather to apportion and protect rights.
Do I think that homosexual couples should have rights? Absolutely. Do I think that those rights should be given under the heading of marriage? Absolutely not. It is my firm belief that marriage should remain in its historical context as between one man and one woman.
My issue is not your religious preference, your moral convictions and so on but the simple fact that the definition of marriage is in question. While I realize that many people may argue that this is merely an issue of semantics, I think not. The etymology of the word marry comes from the Latin word maritare which means "to wed, marry, give in marriage" and also from the words maritus and marita meaning husband and wife respectively. Thus, the very derivation of the word implies the joining of opposite sexes.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Even in the days of ancient Rome when homosexuality was quite common, men still married women and had sexual affairs with men. You may argue that perhaps they did not marry men because it was socially taboo; however, this is not the case. The homosexual ritual of "paiderastia" meaning "boy love" was actually a regular practice in which an older man would take a younger man as his pupil and lover. Even still, the two did not join together in matrimony but rather had a mutually benefiting relationship without the necessity for marriage.
In conclusion, regarding the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California I share similar views with our president-elect. Obama is openly opposed to gay marriage and believes that marriage is between one man and woman. However, in an interview with MTV regarding Proposition 8, he stated, "I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary." I agree as I think the concept of marriage should not be one that the government should be able to expand or limit. The definition of marriage already exists and it is not the role of the government to redefine words, but rather to apportion and protect rights.
Do I think that homosexual couples should have rights? Absolutely. Do I think that those rights should be given under the heading of marriage? Absolutely not. It is my firm belief that marriage should remain in its historical context as between one man and one woman.
Be the first to comment on this story