(no subject)

[xiphias]

People all over my friendslist have been making a simple, obvious statement, and I'll echo it:

I'm in a non-same-sex marriage, my non-same-sex marriage is not threatened by people who are the same sex getting married.

I would like my marriage protected from the sorts of idiots who think that marriage can be protected by destroying and preventing marriage. THOSE people are a threat to marriage. I mean, that's what they're DOING -- threatening marriage.

If they can threaten griffen and worldmage's marriage, if they can threaten darkrosetiger's and her wife's marriage, they can threaten cheshyre and mine. Sure, right now, they're not looking at restricting marriage between any classes which we're in . . . but who's to say they WON'T? If they can destroy THOSE marriages -- if they are ALLOWED to destroy those marriages -- I can't be sure they won't attack mine. Or yours.

Comments

[tylik.livejournal.com]

It's okay if they destroy my marriage.

Um... maybe we can have some kind cap and trade deal?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Do you think that allowing same-sex marriages will make it easier or harder to destroy yours? What sort of marriage should we allow in order to let your existing marriage, if any, be destroyed? Allowing people to marry computers, for instance, would be a GENUINE threat to many marriages.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

I don't mean this in terms of classes of marriages at all. But still, technically, until the divorce is through, I am in a heterosexual marriage. I came very close to not marrying him legally at all because I wouldn't have been able to marry him had he been a girl. Now I rather wish I hadn't.

But while I completely support the existence of same sex marriages, the current meme about "I'm in a het marriage, this doesn't threaten mine marriage" seem a little odd to me. I just figure if anyone's marriage is threatened, maybe it can be mine. I'm okay with that.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Oh, I understood that. Sorry if my humor was being a bit . . . some adjective that would fit there. I was joking, giving you an opportunity to fill in something like, "If he could marry his [car/job/sense of entitlement/whatever], then he would have done that instead of marrying me."

[nextian.livejournal.com]

Hey -- thanks. I needed this. God bless.

[fibro-witch.livejournal.com]

My marriage ended for a reason total separate from the rights of any other human being to marry who they choose. It ended because I became ill, and he did not want to stay with a sick person.

I once called a radio program and said the only way people will be affected by gay marriage is the need to purchase wedding presents. I still stand by that statement. Any one who thinks that their marriage will be cheapened by others being allowed to marry has a lousy marriage.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

There's one other way: if all insurance policies offered by employers now need to cover a new set of spouses, premiums could conceivably go up. However, I tend to think of this as a necessary cost of doing the right thing (sometimes you have those and you have to suck it up) and anyway it's more a symptom of the problems with our healthcase system than with our marriages.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah, on the whole, if more people are covered by health care which includes "taking care of things before they become emergencies", cost to the society as a whole would tend to go down.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Plus, as someone said to me in another comment a few days ago, healthcare ought to be based on something other than who wants to sleep with you.

Good point, though.

[stickylatex.livejournal.com]

healthcare ought to be based on something other than who wants to sleep with you.

So sad, and so LOL!

[brooksmoses]

They are attacking the fundamental institution of marriage, already. There is no need to ask who's to say they won't in the future -- they're doing it now.

They are right: traditional marriage is at risk. They are wrong about why. It is at risk because more and more people are considering a marriage to be an optional part of living together in a committed relationship. Denying marriage to a set of couples makes this worse -- it says to those people that they must consider marriage to be irrelevant to their relationship because they have no other choice. And, if marriage is irrelevant for them, is there any reason why I should be in a marriage?

Furthermore, insofar as marriage cannot encompass all committed couples, then states, businesses, and religious organizations will need to adapt their practices to encompass all of them, further undermining the relevance of marriage in society.

It is not just some people's marriages that they are attacking by denying marriages to those people. They are taking the fundamental point at which marriage is at risk in our society, and they are pushing -- hard -- on that point to further harm and demolish it.

[brooksmoses]

And, since I finally got around to writing that out in this comment, I edited it down a bit and sent it off to the local paper.

Thank you for prompting me to do that.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Well said, and well submitted!

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Also, if you look at the studies of het vs same-sex couples, my own (non-same-sex) marriage, like lots of others, is a lot more like the model common among same-sex couples than like a traditional marriage. My husband does not automatically have the last word on important topics. We share power and choses far more equally. Our roles within the marriage are more the same than they are different. Same-sex couples are far from the only ones setting the example of egalitarian relationships, but they are one example.

[tendyl.livejournal.com]

well said!

[stickylatex.livejournal.com]

Wow - beautifully said! May I quote you?

[brooksmoses]

Certainly!

[navrins]

"...and I said nothing because I wasn't a homosexual?"

(Incidentally, I'm pleased that I can google the phrase "and I said nothing because I wasn't a".)

[mightydoll.livejournal.com]

ah, you beat me to it (though I did assume someone would have)

[datalore.livejournal.com]

Oh you haven't seen our married lesbian agenda for today yet though.

1. Wake up.

2. Let dog out.

3. Threaten xiphias's marriage.

4. Have breakfast.

I *knew* I forgot to do something this morning. :P

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Hey, we've gone through:

• extended unemployment of over a year, leading to deep money troubles
  
• disagreements about whether we should have children
  
• issues of long-term mental disability and my ongoing near-crippledness from depression
  
• massive sex drive dysfunction
  
• other stuff

And we're still together and happy.

So, yeah. Um. "Bring it." Ain't NUTHIN' you can do to threaten our marriage that we haven't already done to ourselves, and survived.

[datalore.livejournal.com]

"You can't threaten me, only I threaten me!"

Congrats for surviving it all.