Skip to main content

Atticus Circle

I had never heard of the Atticus Circle or it's founder Anne S. Wynne until the other day when a LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender) employee support group in Cisco (my employer) sent me an invitation to join a discussion about...


"the value and process of recruiting our straight allies to our LGBT
Employee Resource Groups"


As a matter of fact, I didn't even know that Cisco had a LGBT employee resources group. I don't know whether the LGBT lifestyle is biological or social, but I know for sure that it isn't for me. I also believe that unfair discrimination against anyone, be they individuals or couples, is wrong. To me the "golden rule" is basically a law of physics. Every person should always be treated with love and respect, no exceptions, ever.


So I look for a logical solution to this dilemma. There is a simple solution to non-discrimination with respect to LGBT lifestyles. It's called civil union. Properly designed, civil union gives LGBT individuals and couples exactly the same civil rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples, thus eliminating the possibility of discrimination. It does this without changing the plain, historical, biological, and common sense definition of what marriage is.

In my view marriage is the combination of at least three things. First, marriage reflects the obvious science of evolutionary biology in which it is necessary for males and females to form bonds & unions for procreation and nurturing of children to guarantee the survival of our species. Second, the evidence from psychology suggests strongly that children and adults both develop best in the social institution of the family and particularly where there are both caring fathers and loving mothers. And finally, there is that mystical or perhaps spiritual quality that binds man and woman together in marriage, often lasting a lifetime, and that's like no other earthly experience.

Those of us who are defending the idea that marriage is the union of man and woman, are not arguing for discrimination against LGBT's, we think their civil unions should be equal in every conceivable way. We are merely attempting to preserve the meaning of the relationship which we hold dear, called marriage. And, to show that the relationships which LGBT couples have is fundamentally different; should be called something else like civil union; and should not redefine the historical, logical and mystical meaning of marriage between man and woman.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forty Years

My wife Joy and I celebrated our 40 th wedding anniversary this past weekend with our children and grand-children. We were on lovely Sea Island, Georgia watching this spectacular sunrise and wondering how it was possible that forty years could have gone by so quickly. We had a lot of fun telling all the old stories about how we met, and courted, and married, and brought up the kids. Lots of laughs and a few tears as well. We've been through good times and bad together. We've both worked hard, had a few disappointments, but basically have accomplished mostly good things. We've had good health, loving families, good friends, three fine sons we're very proud of, wonderful daughter's-in-law who are perfect for our boys, and four of the best grandchildren ever. Life doesn't really get any better than that. We've really been blessed and we thank God for that. Now we're working to keep our health and live to celebrate forty more.

Barry Schwartz - The Paradox of Choice

MediaPost Publications - Americans Get More Channels, Watch Fewer Of Them, Especially Broadcast - 03/13/2006 Ironically, Barry Schwartz spoke at PC Forum last night about the Paradox of Choice, and what did I wake up to this morning. Another possible example of too much choice in the channels people have to choose from on television. I wonder whether the "a la carte" crowd has thought about this problem. I'll have to ask Prof. Schwartz about that today.