Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Why can't anyone answer this question?
Pat_B - I can agree that marriage can be ". anything but pleasant at times"
And I would also add that most married couples will experience at least some of the unpleasant situations you describe but there is something that compells us instinctively to find companionship.
posted by
gomedome
on September 14, 2007 at 6:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Marriage may be sanctified in church,
but in the back-yards and bedrooms, it's guerilla warfare and covert ops. It's putting on a front for the in-laws, stage dressing for company, power games, lies and betrayals. It's a struggle for domination, disgreement about how to raise children, divorce, battle lines, court appearances --anything but pleasant at times. The question is not whether homosexuals should marry. The question should be whether
anyone should.
posted by
Pat_B
on September 13, 2007 at 10:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Offy - you hit on a point that comes up a lot from gay marriage opponents
I mention that some of the groups opposing gay marriage claim to be safeguarding the sanctity of marriage as an institution but in reality; the likelyhood of success in marriage has to remain irrelevent to the right to be married. If it is not irrelevent, then we find ourselves applying a criteria for inclusion of inalienable rights to one segment of society that the rest of society is not subjected to.
posted by
gomedome
on September 13, 2007 at 7:53 AM
| link to this | reply
I don't see what the big deal is about it either...Quite frankly my gay friends have been together throughout all my failed 3 marriages...
posted by
Offy
on September 13, 2007 at 6:40 AM
| link to this | reply
sannhet - you inadvertantly make a point that I didn't mention in this post
Not everyone in Canada viewed the passage of the same sex marriage legislation in the same light that I do but there was a unanimous viewpoint on just getting it over with. The debate raged on for several years prior to the passage of the legislation, people were in general; sick to death of hearing about it. For many similar reasons to those you mention, there are more important things to address in society. To have all of society collectively diverted to an issue that affects such a small segment is a waste of energy.
I can also add that there has yet to be a farmer show up at any of our courthouses wanting to marry one of his sheep. None of the other ludicrous slippery slope arguments I have heard over the years have materialized either.
posted by
gomedome
on September 13, 2007 at 6:38 AM
| link to this | reply
A-and-B - the parenting of children by a same sex couple fortunately has
safeguards already built in.
Considering that same sex couples cannot have children themselves without some form of outside intervention, they are left with adoption. All prospective parents are screened by adoption agencies.
posted by
gomedome
on September 13, 2007 at 6:25 AM
| link to this | reply
.Dave. - in that case - thanx for stopping in
posted by
gomedome
on September 13, 2007 at 6:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
An excellent post. Down south of you we've got a war that we shouldn't be in, New Orleans is still a wasteland, flooding in Texas and rampent crime in all of the major cities. And of course, rather then deal with these issues, we waste a lot of time arguing about something that is nobody's business but the two people involved. Gotta love America! And don't get me wrong, I do. But when is the nonsense going to stop?
posted by
sannhet
on September 13, 2007 at 5:25 AM
| link to this | reply
They allow the same sex marriage but deny the gays the rights of a heterogenous sex marriage. Half the battle is won. Another public concern is the parenting of children in single sex parenting.
posted by
A-and-B
on September 13, 2007 at 2:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Yet again, I applaud you point by point. Sorry to offer such a boring comment, but I can't contend with anything you've said.
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on September 13, 2007 at 1:55 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - the way the same sex marriage legislation is set up in
eek, that's right---I read in your previous posts that you are Canadian. Sorry for that oversight. It doesn't really change my answer, but it would have changed my approach to it slightly.
Now, understanding what you've posted here about Canadian legislation, I can understand if someone wouldn't want to perform the ceremony because of their own personal beliefs. That to me is their right as a living breathing human being.
As for the rest: I wonder how far the "groupthinkers" will take the issue if they gain power to push their beliefs upon the rest of Canadian society. Could be a little scary.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on September 12, 2007 at 5:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - I'm not entirely familiar with the position that the gay community
holds on marriage versus same sex union.
When the debate was in full swing a few years ago in Canada, I had heard it said by a number of same sex marriage proponents that they felt they did not have to accept anything less than full marriage rights. Not fully knowing the differences between the two, I cannot say if those wanting to enter into a same sex marriage would be accepting less if their only option was same sex union. But I do know that the argument was presented on the principle of equal rights and was upheld on those grounds.
posted by
gomedome
on September 12, 2007 at 11:26 AM
| link to this | reply
marriage is marriage -- but it's not civil; it's religious
as fineyoungsinger said, the sanctity is not affected.
any religion; any church, can hold that same sex marriage violates its own dogma.
just as any church can honor and celebrate same sex marriages.
however, same sex unions are a civil matter, a piece of paper. Should not violate any religious proscription against such.
Marriage was designed to protect the woman since men had a tendency to desert and play around -- that's my take onit. And divorce decrees likewise, to protect the woman from being left out in the cold if a marriage were to break up. That's my reading of the original intent.
My thoughts also are that no one should bind themself to another on paper or by religioius ceremony until they have discovered that they are joined "spiritually"; i.e, they get along together quite well. This is "what God hath joined together". It doesn't need a paper -- only legal protections, etc. need a paper as a follow up.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 12, 2007 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - the way the same sex marriage legislation is set up in
Canada addresses religious concerns.
No person or institution can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony if it is contrary to their beliefs. This is how it should be when it is considered that the legal act of getting married and the ceremony itself are two distinct entities. Once the same sex bill was passed and included the right for any group not to perform the ceremonies, the objections that were still raised by some religious folks made it clear where they were coming from. They want to dictate how everyone else in society should live.
posted by
gomedome
on September 12, 2007 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Maybe I should elaborate.
"Sanctity" connotes spirituality/religious beliefs. The first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Therefore, a state-sanctioned definition in reality has in no way any ramifications on the "sanctity" of marriage, but on the legal rights of individuals choosing to make their relationship permanent.
AND
it is entirely fine if RELIGIONS choose not to recognize marriages between any two parties, for the exact same reason.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on September 12, 2007 at 8:57 AM
| link to this | reply
To answer your question,
It doesn't. Hope this helps.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on September 12, 2007 at 8:50 AM
| link to this | reply