Trying to understand the anti-gay marriage people

Post Reply New Topic

Fnord... you ask a reasonable question. In terms of a tangible reward that might translate, there is little specifically I can identify... the creation of more business in the wedding and ancillary industries, families able to raise children instead of their lives spent in the social services system, a reduction in societal tensions that contribute to the division between individual and community instead of building them higher. However, you also have the knowledge that you have treated another person in the way you would want to be treated... and while it -is- an idealistic approach, it also has a lot more meaning than words.

Ancalagon - that was an interesting progression you took, and appreciate you sharing how you came to your feelings on the matter. I don't know that all people see is a financial benefit, though I won't discredit that aspect - and include health insurance, car insurance, FMLA, credit applications and tax breaks on that list. Secondly, have separate-but-equal approaches worked elsewhere? In that instance, then all such partnerships must be civil unions in the eyes of the government, and marriage should be the domain of religion - and any religion may choose to condone a civil union according to their own beliefs. Speaking for myself, I think that a church should be able to decide their own definition; for legal purposes, it would be the partnership of two adults human beings. The subject of poly-units might be under a communal commitment instead of a civil commitment... but I don't think that the suggestion of one necessitates the argument that every other possibility -will- be brought up or is at issues.

Civil rights - the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality. It is not up to you to deem one subgrouping of humanity as to their worth, and to judge their value on such a superficial level.


M.

the only thing I have against gay marriage is the use of the word marriage. I am religious, and don't believe the definition of the word should be changed, however I would be fine with a new compound word "gaymarriage" which would also conjugate to "gaymarried" and "gaymarries" and you get the picture. Same concept, different word.I have nothing against the people, what I don't like is that marriage was defined only by religions, and not by people outside of religious context historicaly, and it is only recent that marriage has come fully outside of a straight up religious concept. Although, looking at the other side, there is a great benefit to using such a word as marriage, simply because of its deep meaning (that i slowly being tarnished by society through non-commitant marriages and BS 1 day marriages). And the power of the word alone makes me think, yeah, I can see why they would want the right to be recognized that way, it just makes it seem like a more eternal thing. I may not agree with it, but I am ok with it and can accept it.

Marriage included polygamy for many centuries; the definition was then changed. To quibble over a word seems inconsequential to the person affected by the arbitrary choice of others limiting them. As Jon Stewart said - semantics is cold comfort. We all struggle with limits; it surprises me that those so familiar would choose to inflict the same on others... though from a psychological perspective, I should not be. We as a species tend to inflict pain on others, hurting others to the same extent we ourselves have been hurt, instead of choosing something different. That saddens me, still.


M.

Bigamy is anti-Biblical; and by extension, so is polygamy; for it is written, "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matthew 6:24)

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence is still in effect, right? So why do some people think gays deserve less rights than straight people? Last time I checked, the Bible was not a book of law recognized by our government. And hell, I've read the bible for it's literary merits and I never came across anything about God not wanting gays to marry. You can misconstrue anything in the bible to make it say anything you like. I'm not a religious person, and I do not believe every word in the bible is truth, but I believe that Jesus was a good man with good teachings. If he were alive today, I believe he would be personally marrying gay couples because he believed that we were all equal in the eyes of God. I see nothing but fear and hatred in anti-gay marriage arguments, and fear and hatred are the Devil's tools.

Denying marriage to gays is like saying "F*** Jesus's teachings and everything our country is supposed to stand for." You may as well paint a big red X on the Statue of Liberty's inscription. I don't doubt for a second that gay marriage will be legal one day, and future generations will wonder why the hell people were still denying perfectly reasonable rights to each other in the 21st century. As for me, I support love in all it's forms. If people want to hate, let them. In the end, love conquers all.

When benefit is given on such selective basis, then either law or definition need change. I think that is at root of my issue, that essentially there is unequal provision under the law. And as long as laws stand to make us distinct instead of equal, then the system is flawed.


M.