![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More bullshit about preserving the sanctity of marriage.
I'm still waiting for that Magical RebuttalTM from the "sanctity of marriage" people. You know the one I'm talking about: It will supposedly refute the challenge made to fix divorce rates, domestic abuse, spouse-ditching, child abuse, drunken marriages that get dissolved the very next day, and spousal murder BEFORE deigning to say that gay marriage impinges on the "sanctity of marriage."
What sanctity? The sanctity I see, currently, is most certainly not exclusive to heterosexual couples. It isn't confined to divisions of sexuality; marriage sanctity is a huge and rewarding effort made by both spouses, regardless of gender. And frankly, the idea that het-couples magically get to sidestep the requirements being placed on gay marriage just because they are heterosexual is the most hypocritical argument I have heard in a long time.
So. Magical Rebuttal? Let's go, people, pronto. If you seriously believe that the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed by legally recognized gay unions, you better put your money where your mouth is and prove it to me, preferably without using religious reasoning that half the people in the world don't follow or recognize anyway. That's called subjective "proof", and it doesn't apply to everyone, or even most people. If there's a scientifically acceptable reason out there, tell it to me. Because I'm really starting to believe that you HAVE no answer to that argument.
One more thing: If your sentence ends with "it just IS that way," then don't bother wasting your time using it here. You will not like the response I give you. That kind of reasoning would never hold up in a scientific journal or in a competent court of law. We're all critical thinkers. We can be mature enough not to resort to petty tantrum throwing and foot stomping.
I'm open 24 hours.
I'm still waiting for that Magical RebuttalTM from the "sanctity of marriage" people. You know the one I'm talking about: It will supposedly refute the challenge made to fix divorce rates, domestic abuse, spouse-ditching, child abuse, drunken marriages that get dissolved the very next day, and spousal murder BEFORE deigning to say that gay marriage impinges on the "sanctity of marriage."
What sanctity? The sanctity I see, currently, is most certainly not exclusive to heterosexual couples. It isn't confined to divisions of sexuality; marriage sanctity is a huge and rewarding effort made by both spouses, regardless of gender. And frankly, the idea that het-couples magically get to sidestep the requirements being placed on gay marriage just because they are heterosexual is the most hypocritical argument I have heard in a long time.
So. Magical Rebuttal? Let's go, people, pronto. If you seriously believe that the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed by legally recognized gay unions, you better put your money where your mouth is and prove it to me, preferably without using religious reasoning that half the people in the world don't follow or recognize anyway. That's called subjective "proof", and it doesn't apply to everyone, or even most people. If there's a scientifically acceptable reason out there, tell it to me. Because I'm really starting to believe that you HAVE no answer to that argument.
One more thing: If your sentence ends with "it just IS that way," then don't bother wasting your time using it here. You will not like the response I give you. That kind of reasoning would never hold up in a scientific journal or in a competent court of law. We're all critical thinkers. We can be mature enough not to resort to petty tantrum throwing and foot stomping.
I'm open 24 hours.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 10:45 pm (UTC)From:*loves to live in a country where gay marriage is allowed and accepted*
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:00 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 09:14 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:07 pm (UTC)From:More power to Deutschland for being forerunners in the matter of legalizing gay unions.
Sanctity of Marriage...as if...
Date: 2006-12-03 12:00 am (UTC)From:I guess what really irks me about the people who are proponents of these views is that they tend to define themselves as "pro-American" (as if I'm not), but the beauty of America is supposed to be the freedom each person has to do what is right for that person...Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and all of that. To oppose gay marriage and keep people from having the chance to legalize their commitments simply because they don't believe in it even though it doesn't detract from their own marriages or effect them in any way is contrary to everything that America is supposed to represent. I can't think of anything more mean-spirited and judgmental. It really makes me sad. Now, I am not a huge believer in marriage, myself, because it just never seemed necessary to me to further my commitment to someone. However, simply because I don't believe in it doesn't mean that I would force my views into the legal system to effect others, and neither should anyone else.
Thank you so much for bringing this up. This has been swirling around in my head for the past two days. I am totally with you on this subject and I am interested to see if anyone can come up with some sort of logical argument against gay marriage, but it's hard to imagine.
Lisa
Re: Sanctity of Marriage...as if...
Date: 2006-12-03 03:45 am (UTC)From:I just wanted to comment on this statement you made. First, a disclaimer: I am one hundred percent in favor of gay marriage, and although I am religious, my religion actually advocates for the legalization of gay marriage, so I (luckily) have no conflict there. My point being that I'm on your side, and this is not meant to be confrontational.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that the sentence I quoted above made me a little uncomfortable. As you rightly pointed out, your personal beliefs should not be forced on the legal system, but, in my opinion, this isn't a matter of belief. It's an issue of civil rights, and not just whether certain couples have the right to "further [their] commitment to someone else". That's not what LEGAL marriage is about. That may well be the purpose of religious marriage, but we have to separate these two ideas. Civil unions, or simply legal marriages (that is, a marriage legally sanctioned by the government) should be wholly separate from the extraneous wedding ceremonies performed by religious officials. Marriage, as a modern institution, is about certain legal rights and benefits, and it is fundamentally un-American to disenfranchise one segment of tax-paying citizens.
I'm just trying to say that I think it's important that we divorce (hee hee!) our idea of marriage from the religious trappings of the past, thereby avoiding lines like "I don't believe in marriage because I don't need to stand up in front of everyone I know just to tell my soon-to-be husband that I love him" (which I know you didn't say! Just giving an example of a statement that irks me). That's not what marriage is, not legally, and the sooner we separate these two conflicting notions, the sooner we can have a proper, secular institution of civil unions to go along with the optional religious marriage.
Whew! Again, I hope this didn't seem confrontational at all, as I am completely in agreement with everything else you said. And I, too, eagerly await a proper logical argument against gay marriage so that I can really sink my teeth into something :)
Re: Sanctity of Marriage...as if...
Date: 2006-12-03 04:42 am (UTC)From:Legal marriage is nothing more than an enforceable contract (akin to the sale of a house, employment agreement, or joint venture between two businesses).
Of course, the two are so interwined in people's minds that perhaps the only way to separate them is to rename legal marriage.
Re: Sanctity of Marriage...as if...
Date: 2006-12-03 05:46 am (UTC)From:ok, trying to stay positive :)
Re: Sanctity of Marriage...as if...
Date: 2006-12-07 08:28 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 07:53 am (UTC)From:Just to put forth a slightly different perspective...
I don't think you have to black-and-white it like that, not when it comes to faith. I think any religion that doesn't allow for a little bit of questioning within its own doctrine is not really the best of situations. I am a Unitarian Universalist, and my religion, while beginning as an offshoot of Christianity, now encompasses so many other "vague spaces" in between other religions as well. We have Unitarian Buddhists, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Jews, Unitarian Aetheists, Catholics, Pagans, Wiccans, etc, etc. You get the idea. We also have people that accept multiple beliefs from multiple religions.
What I'm saying is that a lot of people who are Unitarian in my church are there (I think) because they couldn't find the freedom to stretch out that far in their religions, to take some of it and say, yes, yes, and yes, these I believe, but this, this over here, makes me question the legitimacy of things a bit. Now, I definitely do not pretend to speak for all Unitarians; everyone has their own reasons for embracing a certain faith. But I guess I've been raised to question everything, to find the validity behind most of the things I am faced with, and so I find it a very alien idea to negate an entire doctrine just because I don't believe in some sections of it. I think it's perfectly alright to say, this makes sense to me, totally, but hey, I don't know about this other thing... It's kind of like being able to question your government. It doesn't mean you are being unfaithful or treasonous to your homeland, just that you are taking an active interest in things and how they affect you. I don't go along with everything Unitarian doctrine says. But that's my right as a Unitarian, to accept what I agree with and set aside what I don't.
I am not saying I feel you should go out and question everything, because I have no idea how that will make you feel personally in terms of your faith. Your doctrine is your doctrine, and you know better than I about what it means to question it, as I am not Christian. How you read and question or don't question the Bible is completely within your jurisdiction.
And I totally agree: I don't think God would ever be that petty, damning an entire group of people just because of which gender they choose to love. It seems so... futile.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 03:52 am (UTC)From:I don't share your religious views, but in a way I find that even more encouraging. It's brilliant to realize that people from very different religious traditions, with different beliefs regarding homosexuality can still agree on this issue!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:30 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 05:36 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:27 am (UTC)From:I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I get very ngry, however, when well-meaning people try to "good-intention" their beliefs on me. If people can argue their side without resorting to attempts at conversion, then more power to them, and have at it, I say. But I just hate being told I'm going to hell because I don't embrace a certain set of beliefs, and it is NOT just Christians who do this. Let it be known (if it isn't already) that religious prejudice is in every religion, regardless of how righteous or forward-thinking that religion is. I'm not saying everyone practices religious prejudice. Just that I suspect there is no religion I know of that does not contain fanatics.
So, yes, my Christian friends can put forth an argument. But it is a scenario where they stop listening to MY argument that makes me upset. If God loves everyone, then God loves everyone. Saying that a group doesn't receive that love is like that whole "more equal than others" mentality. How can an equal be more equal than others? The statement itself contains its own hypocrisy.
Faith is such a tricky thing to argue, and that's why it is the basis for so many of the conflicts in our history and our present. The bad thing is that faith is supposed to unite people, to give peace. And it's being used as an excuse to destroy people. That makes me so sad.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:26 pm (UTC)From:And you are so, so right about secular "faith" being just as Evangelical. People think that because they don't have a religious title tied to their comments, they aren't being religiously prejudiced. And that's such a crock. There are at least two sides to every argument. And both of them can degenerate. I think it's a function of people trying to feel more important, more righteous, than others, and so they tend to smack down what they don't personally find important, therefore labeling everyone else as "stupid." Which is wrong.
I don't know if you were thinking of thise when you mentioned scientific theories, but my brain went into a tangent: It's just such a leap for me, personally, to see people ignoring scientific discovery and such out of hand just because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. I guess you'd say part of my faith lies in the truth of science, and so of course it's very hard to come up against people who put very little creedence in it. But I guess that's the same way you would feel about someone who doesn't believe in God. For you, it's been "proven," for lack of a better word. For others, it hasn't even come close.
I know there's a way to accept both without demonizing one or the other. And I know people have found it. But most people don't seem to want to try. I guess I like to think that everyone would want to at least try. But then again... these are humans we're talking about...
Sorry, I'm also a bit of a pessimist. Could you tell? ^__^ ♥
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 02:58 am (UTC)From:If that's the case, shouldn't the problems faced by het couples (like you said)- domestic abuse, spouse-ditching, child abuse, drunken marriages- show that the sanctity of marriage has long been destroyed by het couples?
Oh.. and some of my said 'friends' reasoned that if we permit same-sex marriages, more and more people will be gay, and that the world population will decrease because guys will not have children. I was like WTF? That's the most crappiest thing I've ever heard - EVER!
Gender doesn't matter!
*agrees with Luthien82* I wish they legallize same-sex marriages n my country as well.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 03:13 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 04:34 am (UTC)From:Ironically, if this were actually true, it wouldn't be a bad thing considering how overpopulated the world is.
Also, legalizing same-sex marriage would likely be a symbolic step of acceptance towards homosexuality that would promote more people to admit to being gay, or for bisexual persons to choose a same-sex partner, so it could lead to more openingly gay people. I would not be surprised if gay couples had fewer biological children than straight couples. Assisted reproduction is very expensive and I doubt any couple could afford to do it more than once or twice. The question would be if these persons would have less biological children as part of a gay couple than they would if they were closeted in a hetrosexual relationship...That'd be an interesting study, but I digress...Either way the statistical difference would be tiny compared to the world population since the US contributes so little to its growth currently.
Try that on your 'reasoning' friends.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:09 am (UTC)From:I agree with you on this.
Erm.. to be honest, I didn't phrase it correctly. For the 'more and more people will be gay' part- Their exact words are: If same-sex marriages are legalized, more straight men and women will turn gay. Which will in turn, reduce the world's human population.
What I was trying to say was- just because same-sex marriages are legalized, it dosn't mean that people will turn gay! But it will make gay or bisexual people be more open about it because it's accepted in our society. Being gay or straight isn't something that can be controlled with a switch of a button. You have to be gay to be gay.
Oh god.. I'm not making any sense am I?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:52 am (UTC)From:Though to be honest i hadn't ever thought about that consequence of legalizing gay marriage, that
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 07:09 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:08 am (UTC)From:And there are other theories, don't misunderstand me. These just seem to be the prevailing two, in my opinion.
In terms of number 1, my father had an interesting idea, and that is that there has always been a certain percentage of the population that is homosexual or bisexual, all through human existence, and that it's a function of genetics and natural selection. I find this to be very intriguing, because I am a believer that nature finds ways to correct overpopulation (or you could say that overpopulation's strain on nature leads to certain events). So this idea gives pause for thought, definitely.
As for number 2, I don't think it's contagious, certainly. That's just silly. You don't "catch" homosexuality. If that were the case, then everyone would "catch" it, because whether you are aware of it or not, you have come into contact with a homosexual person in your life. But I had a friend once who submitted that tastes in people change over time, just like tastebuds do: someone you found attractive when you were younger might not necessarily be attractive to you in your later years. I know that I am not attracted to the same type of guy that I used to be, so who's to say that the same isn't true of gender attraction as well?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 09:11 am (UTC)From:Well, there is a possibility that one day I will fall in love with another girl. Things can change.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 07:55 pm (UTC)From:that there has always been a certain percentage of the population that is homosexual or bisexual, all through human existence, and that it's a function of genetics and natural selection. I find this to be very intriguing, because I am a believer that nature finds ways to correct overpopulation (or you could say that overpopulation's strain on nature leads to certain events).
The logical problem with this theory is that if homosexuality really did 'correct' overpopulation, then people with the homosexuality 'gene' would have fewer children, thus reducing the presence of such a gene in the population, to the extent that, after several iterations, such a gene would only represent a miniscule amount of the gene pool, not the significant percentage of gay persons today.
One possible explanation is that if gay persons had fewer children, in times of famine, their children had a better chance of survival into adulthood. However, there has been no evidence of more gay persons in overpopulated regions or time periods.
#2: I think with gender attraction it's also likely people figure out they have attractions they previously weren't aware of, or were only vaguely aware of. If there's a scale of gender attraction (see Kinsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports)) then people who are predominantly heterosexual might never seriously consider engaging in a homosexual relationship or encounter until they meet a 'gay' person.
It's like slash. It's a lot easier to write it after you've read it, but can you honestly you didn't have an unconscious interest beforehand?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:08 pm (UTC)From:Let me revise my statement in light of your excellent point, and say that I think that homosexuality is an an intrinsic part of our collective genetic makeup as a species. It occurs with regularity, and always has. That's all I mean. It's a natural function of our genetics.
I find that to be very intriguing, the addition of certain hormones during pregnancy. I'd very very interested in reading up on that. Do you have any links?
I think it's hard to argue unconscious and conscious interest. I didn't really have any thoughts on slash before I started reading it, but then again, I was fairly young at the time, so my gradual appreciation for it could have just as much to do with my own self-discovery as with what I was reading. And I'm sure both helped push the other along, you know? I know people who knew in their core at a very early age that they were gay or straight, and I know people who went through life believing they were straight and only recently have decided that they aren't. Or maybe they were, and things changed. Or maybe none of us are really gay or straight, but are constantly in a state of flux. I like to picture a spectrum of sexuality when I refer to myself, at least, because it seems the most likely, and the least fixed. Some people won't change, some will... I don't know, I'm getting all metaphysical now. But human sexuality is such an interesting topic!
Have I ever told you how much your imploded kitty-face icon cracks me up? ^_^
no subject
Date: 2006-12-05 12:06 am (UTC)From:For more on the hormone theory, Wiki's article has plenty of research links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
There may also be a genetic basis that makes some people more suspectible to hormonal flux.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 07:59 am (UTC)From:I know plenty of stable het marriages. I know plenty of unstable ones. I know plenty of stable gay marriages. I know plenty of unstable ones. The line shouldn't be drawn through sexuality, but rather through individual ability and effort.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:28 am (UTC)From:Hear, hear! Unfortunately, not everyone thinks that way - especially traditional and religious families/friends like mine.(Though not all religious/traditional people are like that)
I learnt to never begin a sentence with: "Lets say that I'm a lesbian-" when debating about topics such as this one. Their reactions were... explosive. But then again, these are the same people that told me that I'm going to a special hell for reading Satan!Harry Potter.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:34 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 09:01 am (UTC)From:The problem is, many believe that any reasons/decisions/beliefs besides those that match their own are automatically wrong. Therefore, they refuse to open their minds or listen to other well.. stuff.
I am doomed a thousand times over if that's the case. :)
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 04:44 am (UTC)From:WHERE IS YOU!!!! *is weeping* I want's my R-ster *is drooling*
Come to me now *is working personal magic that to summon R-ster and also magically create a constitutional ammendment that redefines marriage as being between any two human beings of a legal age* .... I say any two human beings because I'm still strictly against marriage between Martians and people.
;-p
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:11 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:33 am (UTC)From:CALL IT BLASPHAMEEEEEEEE IF YOU WILLLLLLL!!!!!1!!!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 04:58 am (UTC)From:It is truly horrifying how often petty tantrum throwing and foot stomping wins in court.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:52 pm (UTC)From:And it IS sad, you are right. Hence, my use of the term "competent courts." ^_^
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:36 am (UTC)From:Here's my take on that idea, which was posted when the state I was living in at the time (Oregon) had a "defense of (straight) marriage act" on the ballot.
http://ravenfrog.livejournal.com/14531.html
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:53 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 05:40 pm (UTC)From:so, I really am just a lurker, but I wanted to say thank you for writing such great fic and that I look forward to more interesting entries from you!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:54 pm (UTC)From:Apologies for being out of subject...
Date: 2006-12-05 10:34 pm (UTC)From:On the question about marriage: I live in bigot, old-fashioned country where homosexuality seems to be a sin against the universe. But in this same country, where catholics and all sort of narrow-minded people self appointed themselves as the defenders of the idea of 'family', the annual divorce rate has increased by a good 16% just in the last year. So much for the sanctity of marriage...
I don't like seeing it as a question of politics or religion, I just think that feelings are feelings and no one should feel entitled to tell other people what love is, how to love or who to love, for that matter. (Pity that in my country we have this wonderful German stand up comedian all dressed in white, that throws tantrums every so often, ranting about the true nature of love...)
Sorry, I don't want to offend anyone, but try to eat when in the 1 a.m. news there's always this sorry excuse of a religious leader spouting off nonsense...
Re: Apologies for being out of subject...
Date: 2006-12-06 07:59 pm (UTC)From:Thank you so much for translating it, and for just being so into my fics. It really feels wonderful to know that you like them so much. And I'm sorry again for not responding earlier.
Which country do you live in? You bring up an excellent point, that no one really has a right to dictate love and marriage, and I definitely agree that politics and religion should be separated completely. It has caused so many problems in the past. It will do so again.
Re: Apologies for being out of subject...
Date: 2006-12-07 08:33 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 08:41 pm (UTC)From:i cannot believe that canadian pm stephen "podge" harper is fixing to re-open the same-sex marriage debate. after it was SETTLED and voted upon, seconded, carried and written into law. oh, but that's insufficient for monsieur harper (who is a born-again christian and right-wing fundie bootlicker to g.w. bush, esq.).
so yeah. here we fcking go again.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-11 07:31 am (UTC)From:Yeah, they gotta rehash everything, don't they? Nevermind that it's already been discussed... Then again, I wouldn't like a system that is set in stone, because then change of any kind would be impossible, so... Flipside of the coin. Not a nice one or a preferable one, but important. *sigh*
Amen
Date: 2006-12-07 02:28 am (UTC)From:This is one Roman Catholic who believes wholeheartedly in Love. Love for black, pagan, prolife, Republican, you name it, I try to love it, because as a person of religion I am trying to recognise the big picture. The big picture is *not* that homosexual people desire sex with members of the same sex. The big picture is that they will build upon the phrase 'Sancity of Marriage', becasue these are people who obviously believe and want this blessing, if thier righteous protestations are anything to go on.
So, amen.
Re: Amen
Date: 2006-12-11 07:29 am (UTC)From: