On why I imagine people who are against gay marriage are against it:

[xiphias]

Underneath the following cut tag are concepts which many people on my friends list may find offensive.

But who I'd REALLY like to hear from are people who ARE against gay marriage.

I'd like to put together an argument which, I suspect, may be a reason why people are against gay marriage. This is not an argument which I believe; rather, it is an argument which I can imagine which leads to the same conclusions that I perceive among people who are against gay marriage.

What I'd really love is if people who are against gay marriage would let me know if this argument is close to how you feel.

Anonymous commenting is on, and IP tracking is off. And I'm going to do something which I NEVER do on my LJ: if anyone gets nasty against people, I'm going to delete comments. I'm inviting people to say things which actually, in a real sense, are personal attacks against other people on my friends list.

In other words, if this works the way I hope it will, griffen, you, among other people, are not going to want to read it.

In Leviticus, gay sex is one of the ONLY forms of sex referred to as "an abomination". In Hebrew, it's a much stronger form of condemnation than any of the other things.

It is understood that people will, in their own private lives, make choices that you don't agree with. But to place legal government sanction on this act is to state that you agree with it.

Taking laws against sodomy off the books -- that's fine. By doing that, you are "agreeing to disagree". If it's an abomination, well, it's THEIR abomination, and you can live and let live. If they want to be public, and even have ceremonies -- that's, again, something where you can agree to disagree.

But by placing actual government sanction on such relationships -- that crosses the line between "not opposing" and "supporting". Allowing "abominations" to have the same status as REAL marriages, well, that gives marriages the same status as abominations. And THAT'S why it destroys marriage.

Even "civil unions" can be seen as a live-and-let-live compromise. But this -- putting a real marriage and an abomination in the same category? That calls into question the legitimacy of ALL marriages.

So -- people who are against gay marriage? Is this somewhat similar to how you think about it?

Comments

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

that WAS civil. that was my impression of the comment...that basically the person was saying it's just not important. i don't find that a valid argument. her/his not being concerned isn't really the point. the point is why that should affect other people.

so your condescending comment aside, i do have a valid point here. that that comment isn't an argument, it doesn't address the real issue, and is a person saying 'well i don't think it's a big deal, so get over it.' that does not justify taking away rights from people who it affects.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

This isn't a place for the argument. We're not debating here.

What we're doing is listening to the side that I don't agree with. We're listening respectfully, and giving them an open place to make their points without being attacked. In this thread, we're not poking holes in anti-gay-marriage arguments, we're not debating them, we're not dissecting them.

ALL we are doing is listening, and understanding. If you want to ask questions to clarify things, that's okay. But we are NOT saying that their argument is wrong. Not here.

That's why I warned people off above the cut tag. If it is too uncomfortable to listen to arguments against gay marriage without attacking back, I totally understand and respect that. And that's why the warning above the cut tag.

Whether I agree with what you're saying here or not: this is exactly the sort of comment that I said I'd get rid of, because it's exactly what is NOT helpful to MY goal, which is to listen to the arguments of people with whom I disagree -- whether I think they're valid or not, whether they're emotional, or based on premises with which I don't agree, whether I feel they're logically flawed. Or whether they're arguments I DO respect.

Whatever the arguments are, they are their arguments, and I owe it to them to listen, and understand them.

[(Anonymous)]

I just wanted to say thank you for this post. I'm one of those people who can't understand the other side of the debate, so this has been eye-opening.

An Abomination to Marriage?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't buy the "gay marriage = abomination therefore defiles marriage for all" suggestion. If someone commits an abominable act, then everything else they do becomes corrupt by association? I don't think there's a logical argument there. The only defensible argument against gay marriage is a religious one. There are many who may not be particularly religious but will still want to defend marriage against homosexual unions, as they once did for racial unions, and do it for purely aesthetic reasons, which I believe is the case. Don't expect them to stand that ground however: Only an extremist would admit such a position. Religion is the only socially acceptable defense to take, but it is not the whole truth.