Starfox ([info]taynar) wrote,
@ 2008-11-03 14:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:politics

gacked from [info]morga
Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.

My comment: If those aforementioned bigots want to worry about people hurting the "institution" of marriage, they should look to Hollywood and celebrity "marriages". Those people make a far bigger mockery of so-called "traditional" marriage than any gay couple could ever do.


(Post a new comment)

Celebrities, sure...
[info]coat_of_arms
2008-11-04 11:44 pm UTC (link)
...but I blame no-fault divorce. :)

I would have been open to civil or contractual unions that handled hospital visitation or insurance coverage...the term "marriage" has religious overtones, thus I don't subscribe to a "gay marriage."

The main problem I have is that this is all being decided by courts rather than by the legislatures. The bench shouldn't be writing new law.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Celebrities, sure...
[info]taynar
2008-11-05 08:03 pm UTC (link)
So...your objection to gay marriage is one of...etymology?

*boggles*

Again, I do not understand how two gay people getting "married" affects you in the slightest. So, why do you care?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Celebrities, sure...
[info]coat_of_arms
2008-11-05 08:51 pm UTC (link)
It might affect us slightly, as those agencies that planned their businesses under one set of rules would then have to pass along the costs of riskier behavior to all of us or risk the stigma of "discrimination." But there is more involved than whether or not something affects me.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God long before the founding of our country. It is a confession that a man and a woman are to leave their parents, love and serve one another, and if God grants it, raise children. It is an expression of the Gospel, referenced several times as a representation of Christ and his church, especially in Ephesians 5.

The state's use of marriage as a legal corporation has been in the interest of convenience. I would rather the state not get into the business of declaring who's married and who's not, rather than confuse the issue.

This is more about a confession of fact rather than the source definition of a word. And language affects everyone. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Celebrities, sure...
[info]taynar
2008-11-05 10:17 pm UTC (link)
those agencies that planned their businesses under one set of rules would then have to pass along the costs of riskier behavior to all of us or risk the stigma of "discrimination."

*blinks* Ok, explain to me how two people of the same sex living in a committed, presumably caring relationship (or at least as caring as their heterosexual counterparts) constitutes "riskier behavior"???

I would rather the state not get into the business of declaring who's married and who's not, rather than confuse the issue.

Careful, there you go sounded almost like a libertarian. In principle I agree with you, the government should not have any say in what is a marriage or what union gets treated as a marriage. I think the free market would figure it all out. The only reason it is involved is because it extends benefits to married people. Mostly tax related benefits, but some inheritance and other issues (that again should be the purview of common law courts, not the government).

So long as the government is interfering, and there is no concerted effort to halt the interference, then government should be blind to such things as gender. And no where is anyone forcing churches to recognize gay marriage, so Gospel doesn't even enter into it; unless you want to start legislating the Bible.

Of course, at one time inter-racial marriage was not allowed. So by your logic, because at that point in time marriage was "defined" as one man, one woman, both of the same race, that was all hunky dory.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]coat_of_arms
2008-11-06 12:16 am UTC (link)
Ok, explain to me how two people of the same sex living in a committed, presumably caring relationship (or at least as caring as their heterosexual counterparts) constitutes "riskier behavior"???

Well, perhaps not girl-girl, but unless rectums evolve quickly, it's common sense that -that- kind of activity is more harmful than normal sex. And if insurance companies are going to cover those kind of injuries, either they raise rates on the people who perform those activities (from there it's no small leap for them to cry "discrimination") or spread the cost over everyone (why should I pay for that?).

(that again should be the purview of common law courts, not the government)

Please clarify what you mean in the separation of "common law courts" from "the government."

Of course, at one time inter-racial marriage was not allowed. So by your logic, because at that point in time marriage was "defined" as one man, one woman, both of the same race, that was all hunky dory.

Just because "one man, one woman, both of the same race" falls within the set of "one man, one woman" doesn't mean things were "hunky dory". That would be a secular over-restriction of the definition, as opposed to the secular under-definition of "gay marriage."

no where is anyone forcing churches to recognize gay marriage

Not yet, but a lesbian couple in Massachusetts sued to hold their "wedding" on a campground owned by a Methodist church, citing discrimination. Sweden and Canada have laws on the books defining the preaching against homosexuality as hate speech. Canada has fined priests for speaking against it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]taynar
2008-11-06 12:34 am UTC (link)
it's common sense that -that- kind of activity is more harmful than normal sex. And if insurance companies are going to cover those kind of injuries

Why should it be any different than a heterosexual couple who engages in anal sex? So the frequency is greater in gay male relationships than in heterosexual couples, but I'm thinking that, outside of porno or promiscuous sex, gay men kinda know what they are doing. I think your concerns of insurance premiums going up to cover disease or trauma associated with the act is somewhat of a straw man. Show me conclusive data that "normal" gay sex occuring in a committed, caring relationship has greater probability of disease or injury than heterosexual sex in a committed, caring relationship, then I might re-evaluate your point.

Please clarify what you mean in the separation of "common law courts" from "the government."

It's the difference between common law and statutory law. Explaining the difference would take too long.

Not yet, but a lesbian couple in Massachusetts sued to hold their "wedding" on a campground owned by a Methodist church, citing discrimination. Sweden and Canada have laws on the books defining the preaching against homosexuality as hate speech. Canada has fined priests for speaking against it.

All of this is not relevant. The campground is private property, any decision to force the church to allow a lesbian wedding would be a violating of their rights. Argue all you want that such a decision may be rendered, but inherently, it is unjust, and I would say violates the state constitution.

Other countries do not factor into this discussion, we are talking about America. The two cases you cite would run afoul of the First Amendment. Again, you may argue that such laws would be passed, but the likelihood of them passing is not relevant to the core issue of gay marriage.

Simply put, gay marriage is not destructive to the fabric of society, nor is it an infringement on anyone else's rights. Morally, I share your disagreement of homosexual behavior. However, it is infantile to suggest that what we find morally repugnant should also be legally repugnant.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]orthette
2008-11-06 02:06 am UTC (link)
By Dan's logic, as a lesbian, I shouldn't have to pay for your childrens' birth or healthcare. I don't engage in behavior that results in unplanned pregnancy. (Why should I pay for that?) So be careful what you're wishing for.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]coat_of_arms
2008-11-06 03:06 am UTC (link)
That doesn't scare me as much as you think it might. :)

I much prefer to protect the integrity of the word marriage. [info]taynar calls it "etymology." Fine. Words mean things. We don't get to play Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass." The rest of the argument I've laid out above.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]chaz_lehmann
2008-11-06 02:24 am UTC (link)
Homosexuals have the same right to marry that heterosexuals do. The right to marry has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has everything to do with divine institution.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]taynar
2008-11-07 06:43 pm UTC (link)
I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I understand you think marriage is something ordained by God, but there are a lot of people that disagree with that viewpoint. As long as government extends, by force, benefits to married heterosexual people, they should extend the same such benefits to two homosexual people who wish to live in a state resembling what you call marriage.

As I outlined above, in an ideal world, government wouldn't even enter into the equation and you can have secular and religious marriage co-existing without one feeling threatened by the other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…