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

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Let me see if I can rephrase what I was trying to get across.

It seems to me that we BOTH agree that "marriage" is something different than "civil union". And that there is something "sacred" about it. Maybe, as you say, not in a religious sense -- but there IS something different, set aside, unique about marriage itself, under that name, within that concept.

There is something different when two people make vows to each other under THAT framework than in any other framework.

Redefining what "marriage" looks like without breaking what it means is the challenge, as I see it. I think I'm hearing you saying, at least in part, that pulling "marriage" into a new shape that can accommodate same-sex risks breaking it, losing whatever it is that is unique and special about marriage.

(And there IS something unique and special about it -- it IS different than any other commitment.)

Those who support same-sex marriage want to allow two people to have that unique bond even if they're the same sex. Those who oppose it feel that there is something else there that will be irreparably broken or lost -- or at least there is that RISK -- if the definition is expanded that way.

I think I'm hearing a number of reasons why that risk exists: some people feel that there is a specific spiritual bond between male and female energies that is inherent in the bond which is "marriage"; some people feel that recognizing as holy and sacred something which they feel is fundamentally sinful breaks the concept of holy and sacred; some people just feel "it's worked this long -- why risk it?" And I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

So people are feeling threatened that the government is forcibly redefining an existing social construct.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, point to communities and religions which DO perform same-sex marriages, and say that that shows that the construct has already shifted, naturally and organically, without breaking, and want the government to recognize that. And so feel that things like Proposition 8 are an example of the government, well, forcibly redefining an existing social construct.

Does that make sense?