![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasUnderneath 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,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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?
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?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-06 01:09 am (UTC)Another argument I see is that without regard to religion or culture, throughout history, all societies have been built upon male/female reproductive family units.
That seems a bit overstated to me; I feel like it's based on an assumption that the nuclear family -- or, at least, the extended nuclear family -- has always been what families have looked like. And a bit of modern-Western-culture-centrism, too; somewhat like the arguments that assume marriage is fundamentally a religious thing, when in many cultures (including amongst the Puritans, and how much more American do you get?) the religious organizations have nothing to do with it.