- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,135
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Stacy said:I think Billo was saying that the whole same sex marriage issue is no one's business in that it should be a private issue between two people. I don't think he was telling you to mind your own business.
The relationship is a privet matter. The legal standing of that marriage, is a matter of public policy; and if you will note, I am discussing public policy, not the realationship.
You know, I have received allot of grief on another thread for having abstained my vote in the last pres. election; having been accused of not knowing or not caring about public policy.
But now, I come here, and I'm being told to but-out.
How does allowing two members of the same sex warp marriage? No one's marriage has any impact on my marriage or the sanctity of my marriage. Are you married? If a friend of yours (female) had a husband who was beating the crap out of her, would that have any impact on your marriage? If a friend of yours had a spouse who was an alcoholic, would that impact your relationship? I find it rather sad when people argue that allowing gay people to marry will somehow diminish the meaning of marriage. The divorce rate is 50%. My parents have been married for almost 40 years. The divorce rate hasn't affected them. Marriage is what the two individuals make of it--not what others outside the marriage make of it. I don't get this argument at all.
*sigh*
Haven't I screamed this loud enough yet?
Allow me to reiterate......
My primary issue with same-sex marriage does not have to do with sexual orientation, or even an additional legal allowance for what marriage can be legally defined as.
My primary issue with same-sex marriage has to do with how it is being sought. The 14th. Amendment will simply warp marriage into little more than a Living Will by stripping away nearly all of the requirements which make marriage a special union.
It is not the goal, but the miens being used to achieve that end, which I have a problem with.
By invoking the 14th., in addition to the gender requirement, 'you' are eliminating the familial relation requirement, the age requirement, the number of-contractual-signers requirement, etc.
You're right--no other argument is strong enough because the other arguments are based upon small-mindedness. "Oh, if we allow gay people to marry, what will happen next? People marrying 2 other individuals, or people marrying their pets?? OMG, it will just make marriage go down the tubes." Oh brother. To me, the 14th Amendment is a very valid reason for allowing gay people to marry. Why are you and I entitled to this benefit just because we are heterosexuals?
Er, I said.....
"Ironically, the only way to realize same-sex marriage is through the 14th. Amendment, because absolutely no other argument is strong enough to make it through the legislature."
Other arguments for same-sex 'marriage could be oriented around the creation of family, with a heavy $$$ accent.
But now you are telling me that arguing in favor of same-sex 'marriage on the bassis of family is "small mindedness"?
I'm suppose to be persuaded by your view?
As to the slippery-slope, yes, that is exactly what is currently happening.
Again, I just don't get this mentality. No one's relationship, outside of the relationship with my spouse, has any impact on me and the hubster's committment. While I believe we have a very strong marriage, I don't think our dedication to one another is unique. Maybe people are less strong than I am, so it's hard for me to even fathom that allowing two members of the same sex to marry somehow denigrates my own marriage. It doesn't even make sense.
Not your marriage....not my marriage.....the institution of marriage.....the codified legal representation of marriage.
By reducing marriage to a "strictly legal contract", 'you' are taking out the core of the institution, 'you' are removing that from which the codified legal representation came, 'you' are removing the client, leaving only the lawyer.
Marriage is being turned into a cell without a nucleus, a solersystom without a son.