Same-Sex Marriage
Oct. 30th, 2008 12:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
not_hathorIn support of same-sex marriage
Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
Seriously, my marriage is more endangered by the current culture of entitlement, self-absorbtion and failure to accept personal responsiblity for actions. What ever happened to "Do unto others as you would have done to you" and "love your neighbor as yourself" and 'judge not lest you yourself are judged", and those oldies but goodies: 'You shall not commit adultery, bear false witness against your neighbor, or covet your neighbor's spouse, etc.'
Since the beginning of recorded history, human societies have developed contracts with each other for the sharing of property, for the engendering and nurturing of children, for protection and political influence, and for companionship. These contracts have taken many forms throughout history, and while most societies have encouraged these contracts to be formed within the context of the prevalent theology, 'marriage' as a religious institution didn't come into being until Judeo-Christian ethics and dogma began to dominate Western European culture and society from around 1000 A.D. to the present day. Even then, until fairly recently (late $1800's) marriage was still pretty much a civil contract based on property and propagation. And considering the prevalence of divorce in today's society and its emphasis on the 'fair' distribution of familial property and the ensuring child support, marriage still is basically a civil contract.
Personally, I don't feel at all threatened by same-sex marriage. I DO feel threatened by the so-called Christians who want to impose their narrow-minded interpretation of God's Will on everyone , regardless of race, religion or creed, by explicitly excluding a significant portion of the population from enjoying a long-term sexual and emotional relationship simply because they desire to do so with an individual of the same gender, and have such recognized legally by their respective state's civil government. Not everyone in this country is a Christian, or comes from a Western European Judeo-Christian cultural background.
Try reading and LIVING the Amendments, folks!
Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
Seriously, my marriage is more endangered by the current culture of entitlement, self-absorbtion and failure to accept personal responsiblity for actions. What ever happened to "Do unto others as you would have done to you" and "love your neighbor as yourself" and 'judge not lest you yourself are judged", and those oldies but goodies: 'You shall not commit adultery, bear false witness against your neighbor, or covet your neighbor's spouse, etc.'
Since the beginning of recorded history, human societies have developed contracts with each other for the sharing of property, for the engendering and nurturing of children, for protection and political influence, and for companionship. These contracts have taken many forms throughout history, and while most societies have encouraged these contracts to be formed within the context of the prevalent theology, 'marriage' as a religious institution didn't come into being until Judeo-Christian ethics and dogma began to dominate Western European culture and society from around 1000 A.D. to the present day. Even then, until fairly recently (late $1800's) marriage was still pretty much a civil contract based on property and propagation. And considering the prevalence of divorce in today's society and its emphasis on the 'fair' distribution of familial property and the ensuring child support, marriage still is basically a civil contract.
Personally, I don't feel at all threatened by same-sex marriage. I DO feel threatened by the so-called Christians who want to impose their narrow-minded interpretation of God's Will on everyone , regardless of race, religion or creed, by explicitly excluding a significant portion of the population from enjoying a long-term sexual and emotional relationship simply because they desire to do so with an individual of the same gender, and have such recognized legally by their respective state's civil government. Not everyone in this country is a Christian, or comes from a Western European Judeo-Christian cultural background.
Try reading and LIVING the Amendments, folks!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-30 11:57 pm (UTC)If people feel that a homosexual marriage threatens their marriage, their marriage must have been in a lot of trouble up until then.
And that's my two cents. ♥
Eroding our rights
Date: 2008-11-08 08:01 am (UTC)******************
Don't be so sure Prop 8 is "good law". Here's a blog comment I found by
chance, that makes a good point -- a right taken away from ONE group can
all too easily be taken away from ANOTHER group, and once that becomes
common practice, it's very easy to extend it to OTHER rights.
=====================
Proposition 8 is wrong on so many levels. First, we should never, ever,
amend the constitution, especially to exclusion of one specific group.
Second, if one takes all of the religious arguments out of the issue,
there is NO WAY one can - with a straight face - say there is any logic
involved in denying two consenting adults the right to marry. That is
precisely why Chief Justice George (NOT some liberal wacko) decided that
this was truly a civil rights issue. The court's decision to strike down
existing barriers to gay marriage was not "activist" - it was the only
way to uphold precious constitutional rights by all human beings. That
is, in fact, the job of the judiciary - to keep the masses from
violating the constitutional rights of the few.
======================
The problem here is that if you can ban one type of marriage, you can
ban OTHER types too, which in the future might conceiveably include
traditional European "church" marriages. And don't think the "one man,
one woman" marriage is the only type ever sanctioned by a church.
Not only that, but if one religion's definition of ANY social contract
is allowed to dictate law, then its definitions of OTHER social
contracts can ALSO dictate law. What if Leviticus was enforced to the
letter?
And what if some different religion decided to enforce its laws instead?
Taliban, anyone??
Furthermore, there is no moral difference between banning same-sex
marriage, and banning interracial marriage. Remember that when the
pendulum swings back the other way.
******************
Sad to say, it appears Prop 8 passed, but it was very close:
http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/08110018/rr0018pb.html-ssi
8 - SAME-SEX INITIATIVE - YES 1,396,206 50.47
(MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST) - NO 1,370,322 49.53
[blink] Only 10% of the state population is registered to vote?! tho all things considered, that's probably just as well!!
Idiots in this state also voted to ban eggs, I shit you not. Well, not in so many words, but Prop 2 bans normal methods of egg production. Too expensive to retrofit, so the egg producers are all in exit-strategy mode, and in a few years we'll be eating eggs from China instead. (This had NOTHING to do with being "kind" to chickens, and everything to do with foreign food producers. China, India, and the Phillipines are all egg exporters.... follow the money, folks!!)
"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel