I think I've done a pretty good job retaining the ability to at least understand where conservative Christians (for instance) are coming from on issues where I no longer agree with them. (If I ever did... but that's a much more complicated deal.) But on this issue, it's really, really hard for me to get past my incredulity at the lack of logic. Logic which you presented very clearly above
( ... )
Both my neighbor to the left, and my cousin's sweetie expressed the opinion that the business community is pushing an anti-gay marriage agenda to fight against the kinds of benefits they will have to pay out if gay marriage becomes sanctioned. I think perhaps businesses are a strong player in the fight over this, but it's the bigotry of the religious people forcing this issue. It's just one more reason why I'm fascinated by religion in the abstract, and disgusted with it in the reality of it
( ... )
I've always had that sense about Seattle. I wonder if I would fit in *too* well. I'm used to being the odd duck! Heh.
Ooh, speaking of all this, today's Fresh Air is about gay conversion. Terry was just talking with a leader of a "ex-gay" organization. And now she's talking to an ex-ex-gay. Whee. Reminds me of But I'm a Cheerleader.
Marriage is sacred to me because of my religion. What other people due outside of my religion? Means nothing to me. But it would mean something enormous to them. So who the hell am I to stop them, and frankly, why should I care?
A very well-said way of expressing the same feelings I have (as a Catholic).
"We would have many hours of hot, steamy sex." Now, THAT I respect. Heh.
Thanks for the explanation; it totally makes logical sense to me. My Aunt Linda, when we talked about this topic a few years ago, bascially thought there should be two types of marriage: civil, and religious. And while I can understand that distinction, logically, the state should only be able to sanction one of those, because if they get in the business of sanctioning religious marriages (or weddings), then we get into the idea of which "religions" get to have their own sanctioned weddings? Catholics? Jews? What about Scientologists? Satanists? Wiccans?
And then we get into the arena of the state having to decide whether Scientologists are mentally fit enough to decide to get married. Because, well, they're Scientologists. Viva la Science Fiction!
Does the state currently sanction strictly religious weddings? I think most people I know also have to get separate legal documents in order to be considered legally married, although it can all be done at the traditional ceremony rather than a trip to the courthouse.
I knew a couple who never got legally married. Something got messed up and there wasn't time and then they procrastinated and ended up getting divorced- there wasn't one legal document involved.
So basically, I'd say that if people want only a religious marriage, and their church or whatever allows it, then people can do that, but it won't be legally sanctioned. If they want a civil marriage, they should be able to do that. And if they want both, then they would have to get separate legal documentation other than their religious ceremony. There is no reason to bar homosexual civil marriages, but religious institutions that don't sanction it should never be compelled to do so by the state.
I haven't understood the strong opposition to same-sex marriage for about a decade now. It was an issue in the 1990s, with the Hawaii litigation and the "Defense of Marriage Act," at which point there were a lot of arguments pro- and anti- published both in popular media and in legal journals. What I noticed at that point: the defenders of the status quo had no argument. None. Nothing that could pass even a cursory review for factual grounding or basic logic.
Me, I'm a logical, fair-minded person. It was pretty easy for me to stand firmly in favor of same-sex marriage because, well, it's fair and there is not a single credible reason to be against it. What I couldn't understand for years was why so many people were so violently opposed to the concept. I mean, what the hell does it matter to you whether the two guys living a couple of houses away have a formally recognized relationship with mutual rights and responsibilities? It won't make the slightest bit of difference in your life.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Ooh, speaking of all this, today's Fresh Air is about gay conversion. Terry was just talking with a leader of a "ex-gay" organization. And now she's talking to an ex-ex-gay. Whee. Reminds me of But I'm a Cheerleader.
Reply
Reply
Reply
A very well-said way of expressing the same feelings I have (as a Catholic).
Reply
Thanks for the explanation; it totally makes logical sense to me. My Aunt Linda, when we talked about this topic a few years ago, bascially thought there should be two types of marriage: civil, and religious. And while I can understand that distinction, logically, the state should only be able to sanction one of those, because if they get in the business of sanctioning religious marriages (or weddings), then we get into the idea of which "religions" get to have their own sanctioned weddings? Catholics? Jews? What about Scientologists? Satanists? Wiccans?
And then we get into the arena of the state having to decide whether Scientologists are mentally fit enough to decide to get married. Because, well, they're Scientologists. Viva la Science Fiction!
Reply
I knew a couple who never got legally married. Something got messed up and there wasn't time and then they procrastinated and ended up getting divorced- there wasn't one legal document involved.
So basically, I'd say that if people want only a religious marriage, and their church or whatever allows it, then people can do that, but it won't be legally sanctioned. If they want a civil marriage, they should be able to do that. And if they want both, then they would have to get separate legal documentation other than their religious ceremony. There is no reason to bar homosexual civil marriages, but religious institutions that don't sanction it should never be compelled to do so by the state.
Reply
Me, I'm a logical, fair-minded person. It was pretty easy for me to stand firmly in favor of same-sex marriage because, well, it's fair and there is not a single credible reason to be against it. What I couldn't understand for years was why so many people were so violently opposed to the concept. I mean, what the hell does it matter to you whether the two guys living a couple of houses away have a formally recognized relationship with mutual rights and responsibilities? It won't make the slightest bit of difference in your life.
Recently, I read this article (and several others ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment