Quote: magicjay38 said: [Same sex marriage is the product solely of romantic love.
Very interesting.
And I'll be further interested to see what our str8 friends say to that.
If it was sole the product of romantic love wich according to MJ didn't exist untill the 13 century (someone should read Song of Solomon) then it would be a non issue. You could argue that gay relationships are the product solely of romantic love, but the fight over the term marraige is one of politics. A desire for government acceptence (this doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means it's much farther reaching than simply romantic love). Personally I think there is a battle over a word. By reqesting that word marraige be applied you're asking government to say that your relationship is the same as a hetero-sexual relationship. It's not. It may be beutifull romantic or anytyhing else, that's not for me to say, but it's not the same. If you want to make the civil rights comparrison then i would say the fight over the word marraige would be akin to African-Americans asking government to not view them as equal, but to offically call them white. First let me explain why they are different.
Marraige between a man and a woman, i believe, spans beond the individuals. It's a recognition that the two most disperate elements of humanity need each other that unless they can come to a truce they will be incomplete (I'm not speaking necesarily of individuals) Men and women are different, plain and simple. This may suprise some people, but it's fact. M refered to tribal truces brought about by marraige, well the truce between men and women is the most significant and most volitile truce in all of humanity. It's teh joining together of teh ultimate yin and yang of the universe (for you new age types)
I belive that governments position on same sex unions should be one of nutrality. If you want to enter into that relationship romantically then government should have no say, if you want to honour that relationship with a contractual binding then government should uphold that contract. If you want to visit each other in teh hospital or leave your esate to one another then government shoudn't stand in the way. However if you want government to say that your realationship is the same as a hetero sexual one then I don't think that's fair. When ever people in defense of same sex marraige try to analise the "str8's" opposition to it, they alwayseassume it's one of fear or ignorance, but as in any conflict resolution the hardest yet most important question to ask is, "Am I communicating something other than what i intend?" i would submit that the tone of this debate isn't one of successfull conflict resolution and what's being inadvertantly communicated is "you're relationship isn't special" this is most clearly demonstrated by the constant refrain of "str8s have screwed up marraige with divorce and Britney Spears, so now it's our turn to give it a shot" This tack will almost alwayse put your opposition in a defensive posture.
Like it or not you ARE threatening to take something away from hetero-sexual couples and that is the uniqueness of thier relationship. I honestly think that if the homosexual community showed the hetero-sexual community real resect instead of masked distain, then i think they would make great bounds in thier fight for equality. I would suggest that the homosexual community take a posture of "we recognise the uniqueness and importance of your relationships. What we ask is equal rights under the law and a footing to demonstrate the uniqueness and importance of our relationships.
I realise this is alot to read, but i would ask proponants of gay marraige (especailly the gay community of rkmbs) to read carefully what I'm saying and respond, because I have never heard my position taken by either side and i would really appreciate feedback.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
(someone should read Song of Solomon) then it would be a non issue. You could argue that gay relationships are the product solely of romantic love, but the fight over the term marraige is one of politics. A desire for government acceptence (this doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means it's much farther reaching than simply romantic love). Personally I think there is a battle over a word. By reqesting that word marraige be applied you're asking government to say that your relationship is the same as a hetero-sexual relationship. It's not. It may be beutifull romantic or anytyhing else, that's not for me to say, but it's not the same. If you want to make the civil rights comparrison then i would say the fight over the word marraige would be akin to African-Americans asking government to not view them as equal, but to offically call them white. First let me explain why they are different.
