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

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

Since this conversation seems to have expanded beyond xiphias's original request, I may as well toss my two cents into the pot.

I'd really rather see the government get out of the marriage business completely. To me "marriage" is a religious matter. The government should have nothing to say about any religion's position on who may marry and who may not.

What the government does have a legitimate interest in, IMO, is in rights of inheritance, status for taxation, rights to make decisions for one another, and other such matters. These are matters covered quite nicely, so far as I can tell, within the context of civil unions. Therefore, I'd like to see the government establish clear laws regarding civil unions that apply to homosexual and heterosexual unions alike. If the government feels that it needs to limit the number of partners in such unions to two, for whatever reason, that can be done easily enough, so long as the limitation applies to everyone. (I can actually see one possible reason for such a limitation. If you're talking about who can make decisions on behalf of another, a civil union involving multiple partners of equal status could quickly lead to chaos unless all members were in agreement.) As far as rights between parent and child are concerned, that could be dealt with based on the birth certificate or adoption decree whether the parents were members of a civil union or not.

This would then leave marriage as an entirely religious matter, and religions free to make their own rules, according to their own beliefs. If one religion wants to permit marriage regardless of the gender of the partners, so be it. If another wants to limit marriage to members of the same sex, or to members of different sexes, so be it. If yet another marriage wants to allow marriage between multiple partners, that would be their business. This might intersect with a civil union law that limited civil unions to two parties by having the members of the poly-marriage select two partners to enter into a civil union if they so wished.

Under this system, people would be able to enter into the religious institution of marriage without also entering a civil union, or the reverse. In practice, I suspect most people who entered into marriage would also enter into civil union, but one commitment would not necessarily imply the other.

This is a fairly radical idea, but I think it could work if given a chance. At least it has the benefit of not providing a basis for forcing any religion to allow behavior of which it disapproves or for any religion forcing others to follow rules in which they do not believe.

[(Anonymous)]

Ever seen a French wedding? They do something in church, and then walk down the road to the town hall, or whatever, and the judge says his thing.
Duzzy