I'm not going to say that's paranoid: I'm among the people who'd be happy to see polyamorous marriages recognized. So I understand your position.
Would it be fair to say that it's not a problem with the thing, but with the word?
Fundamentally, it sounds like you and people in favor of gay marriages are giving importance to exactly the same thing: the sacredness of marriage. It sounds like you are uncomfortable with a government expanding the definition of a set sacred term, and we are uncomfortable with a government restriction the definition of an expanding religious term.
I don't mean that as an argumentative point, by the way -- it's just something that struck me, that the arguments you're giving feel very familiar to me, like we're valuing the values -- but judging WHAT expresses those values very differently.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-06 01:04 am (UTC)Would it be fair to say that it's not a problem with the thing, but with the word?
Fundamentally, it sounds like you and people in favor of gay marriages are giving importance to exactly the same thing: the sacredness of marriage. It sounds like you are uncomfortable with a government expanding the definition of a set sacred term, and we are uncomfortable with a government restriction the definition of an expanding religious term.
I don't mean that as an argumentative point, by the way -- it's just something that struck me, that the arguments you're giving feel very familiar to me, like we're valuing the values -- but judging WHAT expresses those values very differently.
And thank you for posting this.