![[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 05:38 am (UTC)Traditional societal roles put a lot of pressure on people: get a real job rather than pursuing a career as an actor or musician, settle down and marry at a young age rather than waiting for true love, have a couple of children immediately, etc. The conservative outlook is that these pressures may be unpleasant but are necessary for the good of society. If we were to relax the pressure, we'd end up with a lot of thirty- or forty-something unmarried slackers, who wouldn't be leading productive lives and wouldn't even end up happier with their choices. Anything that threatens traditional gender roles could undermine these pressures and lead to disaster. Many conservatives think we've already gone way too far in this direction, and gay marriage could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Another belief, at least among some of my relatives, is that gay marriage is a deliberate provocation. They think nobody seriously cares about it: there aren't very many gay people anyway, most of them have no interest in marriage, and the few who do are getting married as a lark or as an insult to Christians. They are convinced that gay marriage is just a gambit in the culture wars, that the intended purpose is to change society's direction and damage traditional culture. So when someone talks about loving couples and the legal obstacles they face without marriage, some of my relatives basically think they are being lied to, to cover up the true reason.