Greg weighs in on Gay Marriage

[georgetheduck]

This is in response to a discussion on Jon's Blog. The comment section was getting crowded, so I decided to post my essay of a response here rather than there.

Yeah, I know it's been done to death, but I've recently put some thought into this and clarified my own views on the topic. Read on if you're not too tired of it all to care:

Comments

[saublestud]

Very well thought-out. It's funny how it still comes down to name, more or less :p

[tanjay_1]

It's not so difficult to "actively reject someone else's point of view" if you consider this point of view to be morally wrong. I actively reject the views of racists, bigots, and Republicans. Redundant, I know, but there you have it.

But seriously speaking, you've founded your arguments upon the ownership of marriage, and not its definition. I follow your rationality, and agree with you -- if you recall, I suggested that the only other "fair" alternative to allowing same-sex marriage is to disallow public marriage entirely. As you said, no judge would be willing to make this ruling, and this is, as Brad said, due entirely to the fact that marriage has been adopted as a public instituion.

[georgetheduck]

Well... "the ownership of marriage", as you say, is really just the power to give it your own definition, is it not? Therefore the permanent solution is not to redefine the word, but to admit that the current institution of "marriage" consists of a secular union and a sacred union, and that the two should be defined in isolation of each other.
I say the church should keep the term "marriage" because it was theirs in the first place, and because sentiment is of importance in religion, but should be avoided in law. Anyone who is not religious, or who cannot reconcile their lifestyle with the tenets of the church, should have no problem with getting a "civil union", as long as that's the one option being presented by the state.

And yes, jsut for the record, I do believe there's a lot fo bigotism involved in this conflict. I'm certainly not coming out on the side of the Bible-thumpers, although I tend to think my argument would probably satisfy the vast vast majority of them.

[georgetheduck]

Hmm, that wasn't really a counter-argument, since you were pretty much just agreeing with me anyways. Whatever, I think it was a little clearer than how I said it before anyways.

[tanjay_1]

So upon returning marriage to its rightful owner, must we then return the thousands of words cannabalized into the English language to their rightful cultures? Why not separate our language into its two distinct parts: *real* English, and the bits we stole from others