02-26-2004, 03:13 PM
Alright, this is a touchy subject and I'm not quite sure how to approach it. I'll give it a shot, although I suspect it will go nowhere.
For starters:
The way I see it: Marriage is between two consenting persons; two individuals. Whether they're men, women, black, white or blue, eat Snickers with a fork and knife, vote republican, or spell poorly... it's all irrelevant.
Clearly, if everyone agreed with you, there would be no controversy on this point. But frankly, almost nobody would agree with you. Should sister and brother be allowed to get married? What about minors? Why only two people? Why have marriages at all?
What you need to realize in this context is that marriage is an institution with deep roots. Marriages have existed a lot longer than secular republics, to be sure. And not only that, but it is a such a key institution within the civilization that millions of concepts revolve around it, whether they be religious, social, or legal, or all at once. Trying to peel these layers apart is a messy business, and not likely to succeed in any sense. Tradition and culture bind these things together, in such a way that they influence each other, in such a way that they reach a certain syncronicity. In the U.S. (and the western world in general?) one aspect that remains primarily in sync is that marriage is an institution involving a man and a woman, a husband and a wife.
Along these lines, if you think this issue is just a struggle by homosexuals for equal legal rights, you are missing at least two thirds of the battle. This is mostly about cultural acceptance, and partly about religious reformation. This isn't just a hotbutton issue for the President, it has been a hotbutton issue at general conference for virtually every Christian denomination for each of the last 10 years. This is not so much about being able to get spousal health insurance, as it is about being able to walk down the street holding hands, or even go to a Catholic Church and be bound in holy matrimony.
1. 50% of those who marry get a divorce. There *is* no sanctity left. Look at Britney Spears' wedding in Vegas a few weeks back. We must protect the sanctity of marriage? Sorry folks, but that boat has long sailed. It marooned off of Long Island, and the remaining survivors have voted each other off the island.
This line of thought irks me somewhat. Do you think the church is happy about increasing divorce rates and 'marriages of convenience'? Of course not. So what should they say "Well, people just don't take marriage seriously anymore. I guess we should just give up on the whole deal. It's not like having a family is important anyway."
2. You want some people (those who are homosexual.. as opposed to "homosexual people") to have some sort of approved union, but you don't want to call it a "marriage". Alright, we'll call it a "morriage", and that'll be just fine then. It'll be just like a "marriage" but with people who are gay instead of straight. Sanctity my ass. You want it to be just like a marriage, but only for people who are gay, but it can't be called "marriage", it can just be identical to it. There is no sanctity in that which you can duplicate and rename. If there is sanctity in "marriage" then there would be sanctity in "morriage", and the people who are gay would not be allowed to "morry" either.
Just to throw my own two cents in on this, no. I don't want anything about homosexual relationships to be considered legitimate in any way, shape, or form. But if it were it really possible to completely separate the legal concept of marriage from the religious/social concept, I would far rather allow homosexual marriages of the former type than those of the latter. Better would be to completely ditch the legal concept of marriage altogether, but obviously that leaves several major issues that would have to be resolved individually.
3. I'm also offended that, by excluding some people in marriage, you're "sanctifying" something. You're not sanctifying #$%&. You're acting like a bigot.
You really need to be more tolerant of us bigots. Congressional Medals of Honor are meant for war heroes. Marriages are meant for a husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family. It is nearly a definitional arguement. The fact that many people can get married who really shouldn't be able to is not a valid excuse to allow even more people to get married. Indeed, it would be better if the government were out of the marriage business altogether, and church leaders were more demanding in the counseling processes they require prior to marriage.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Apparently, all men are not created equal if some can marry and some cannot.
Sorry, but I don't buy that. Sexual orientation does not prevent people from marrying... certainly not legally, and probably not even religiously. It restricts who they can marry. The line you have quoted above is also a statement of faith made in a religious context (which you have kindly ommitted), much like "Sodomy is a sin," would be.
"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)
So, you like to strip religion from all American ideals then :)
With liberty(...) for all.
Doesn't these things mean anything to you? They mean a great deal to me; in fact I base my opinions on some of your historical documents and traditions, and I'm not even American.
Liberty is generally a worthy ideal. Like most ideals, if you choose liberty over the alternative in every case you will be labeled an extremist. I think all Americans enjoy a great deal of personal freedom, a lot of which is not available in most of the world. But at the same time, I'm not allowed to drive without buckling my safety belt. Now while I consider that a frivolous infringement on my liberties, there are other things like drug abuse and prostitution that I am happy to see regulated. When it comes to marriage, I would like to see the religious and social institution protected from what I believe to be a false equality argument. The Constitutional amendment proposal is a moot point as it will never come close to passing, and whatever direction this issue goes I think it is going to continue being a sticky mess for some time.
I know I'm going to get my head cut off for this post, but I had to say something, because I just don't see how you, whom I hold in very high regard, could not only feel this way, but express it so openly.
Your head is quite safe. Your opinion is the more politically correct one, and surely the prevailing one on a Diablo forum where most religious fundamentalists wouldn't want to post.
For starters:
The way I see it: Marriage is between two consenting persons; two individuals. Whether they're men, women, black, white or blue, eat Snickers with a fork and knife, vote republican, or spell poorly... it's all irrelevant.
Clearly, if everyone agreed with you, there would be no controversy on this point. But frankly, almost nobody would agree with you. Should sister and brother be allowed to get married? What about minors? Why only two people? Why have marriages at all?
What you need to realize in this context is that marriage is an institution with deep roots. Marriages have existed a lot longer than secular republics, to be sure. And not only that, but it is a such a key institution within the civilization that millions of concepts revolve around it, whether they be religious, social, or legal, or all at once. Trying to peel these layers apart is a messy business, and not likely to succeed in any sense. Tradition and culture bind these things together, in such a way that they influence each other, in such a way that they reach a certain syncronicity. In the U.S. (and the western world in general?) one aspect that remains primarily in sync is that marriage is an institution involving a man and a woman, a husband and a wife.
Along these lines, if you think this issue is just a struggle by homosexuals for equal legal rights, you are missing at least two thirds of the battle. This is mostly about cultural acceptance, and partly about religious reformation. This isn't just a hotbutton issue for the President, it has been a hotbutton issue at general conference for virtually every Christian denomination for each of the last 10 years. This is not so much about being able to get spousal health insurance, as it is about being able to walk down the street holding hands, or even go to a Catholic Church and be bound in holy matrimony.
1. 50% of those who marry get a divorce. There *is* no sanctity left. Look at Britney Spears' wedding in Vegas a few weeks back. We must protect the sanctity of marriage? Sorry folks, but that boat has long sailed. It marooned off of Long Island, and the remaining survivors have voted each other off the island.
This line of thought irks me somewhat. Do you think the church is happy about increasing divorce rates and 'marriages of convenience'? Of course not. So what should they say "Well, people just don't take marriage seriously anymore. I guess we should just give up on the whole deal. It's not like having a family is important anyway."
2. You want some people (those who are homosexual.. as opposed to "homosexual people") to have some sort of approved union, but you don't want to call it a "marriage". Alright, we'll call it a "morriage", and that'll be just fine then. It'll be just like a "marriage" but with people who are gay instead of straight. Sanctity my ass. You want it to be just like a marriage, but only for people who are gay, but it can't be called "marriage", it can just be identical to it. There is no sanctity in that which you can duplicate and rename. If there is sanctity in "marriage" then there would be sanctity in "morriage", and the people who are gay would not be allowed to "morry" either.
Just to throw my own two cents in on this, no. I don't want anything about homosexual relationships to be considered legitimate in any way, shape, or form. But if it were it really possible to completely separate the legal concept of marriage from the religious/social concept, I would far rather allow homosexual marriages of the former type than those of the latter. Better would be to completely ditch the legal concept of marriage altogether, but obviously that leaves several major issues that would have to be resolved individually.
3. I'm also offended that, by excluding some people in marriage, you're "sanctifying" something. You're not sanctifying #$%&. You're acting like a bigot.
You really need to be more tolerant of us bigots. Congressional Medals of Honor are meant for war heroes. Marriages are meant for a husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family. It is nearly a definitional arguement. The fact that many people can get married who really shouldn't be able to is not a valid excuse to allow even more people to get married. Indeed, it would be better if the government were out of the marriage business altogether, and church leaders were more demanding in the counseling processes they require prior to marriage.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Apparently, all men are not created equal if some can marry and some cannot.
Sorry, but I don't buy that. Sexual orientation does not prevent people from marrying... certainly not legally, and probably not even religiously. It restricts who they can marry. The line you have quoted above is also a statement of faith made in a religious context (which you have kindly ommitted), much like "Sodomy is a sin," would be.
"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)
So, you like to strip religion from all American ideals then :)
With liberty(...) for all.
Doesn't these things mean anything to you? They mean a great deal to me; in fact I base my opinions on some of your historical documents and traditions, and I'm not even American.
Liberty is generally a worthy ideal. Like most ideals, if you choose liberty over the alternative in every case you will be labeled an extremist. I think all Americans enjoy a great deal of personal freedom, a lot of which is not available in most of the world. But at the same time, I'm not allowed to drive without buckling my safety belt. Now while I consider that a frivolous infringement on my liberties, there are other things like drug abuse and prostitution that I am happy to see regulated. When it comes to marriage, I would like to see the religious and social institution protected from what I believe to be a false equality argument. The Constitutional amendment proposal is a moot point as it will never come close to passing, and whatever direction this issue goes I think it is going to continue being a sticky mess for some time.
I know I'm going to get my head cut off for this post, but I had to say something, because I just don't see how you, whom I hold in very high regard, could not only feel this way, but express it so openly.
Your head is quite safe. Your opinion is the more politically correct one, and surely the prevailing one on a Diablo forum where most religious fundamentalists wouldn't want to post.