xiphias: (Default)
[personal profile] 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, [livejournal.com profile] 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 03:14 am (UTC)
brooksmoses: (Default)
From: [personal profile] brooksmoses
See argument above: Governments are forcing people to recognize same-sex couples in important ways (e.g., renting apartments to them, photographing their wedding, letting them adopt children), through various anti-discrimination laws. Same-sex marriage, while not actually doing any of that directly, will be a clear and solid cornerstone in the foundation for it.

So, no, I don't believe either side is wrong at all about that. This is a case where one person's nose is another person's swinging fist, and anywhere one draws a line for where the right to swing a fist ends is going to bruise someone's nose.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-11-06 11:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kinfae.livejournal.com
Yet at the same time, certain states are denying those expansions. I can't remember which state it was, but one state also passed a proposal stopping same-sex couples from adopting.

November 2018

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags