I'm going to respond from my own perspective on this, and I hope you'll see it as courteous debate; I do
not intend to be disrespectful to anyone's beliefs.
Anubis said:
To me, marriage is a holy sacrament between a man, a woman and God. I was raised ultra-conservative and, while I've certainly overcome most of the "thou shalt nots" of my early years, marriage is still sacred to me.
...
Is it asking so much to reserve the word "marriage" for one man/one woman?
Well, yes, it is, because what you ('you' referring to opponents of same-sex marriage who use this as your argument) are saying is that
your beliefs should dictate how everyone should live their lives, whether or not they share your beliefs. In my opinion, that's not what a pluralistic, democratic society is about.
Elisabeth said:
I have to say that I wonder why people want to fight for something they don't want to participate in. If someone is desperate to marry, then they probably would have taken the opportunity to marry when it was offered. Yet only there was only about 1 in 4 same-sex couples married in California when given the opportunity to. In Connecticut civil unions, which offer the same benefits as marriage except for the name, have been legal for years. Yet only 1 in 5 of same sex couples have chosen a civil union.
Fair point. Maybe they're fighting for the right to be able to do it if they want? I hesitate to bring the abortion debate in here, but I use it
only for one small comparison, and that is this: many pro-choicers actually say that they would not
personally have an abortion, but they don't want to be denied the right if they ever felt that it was their only option.
"Social experiment"?
Vicki, I'm not going to comment on your exchange with LabRat. I wasn't part of that exchange, so I'm a little disappointed that you're assuming what my response will be in advance of your inviting it. I'm feeling a little slow right now - blame seasonal allergies and forthcoming surgery - so forgive me for saying that I'm actually a bit lost as to the precise point you're making to LabRat and she's making to you.
Regardless, I'm not part of that discussion and I asked a simple question: tell me why you're opposed, and I will listen without prejudice.
ETA: Terry, I've just seen your post, and I hope you know that reasonable supporters of same-sex marriage deplore violence and threats of violence in support of this cause, just as reasonable conservatives deplore violence against gays. I
do deplore it - but it's exactly the kind of thing that happens in debates and struggles over these sorts of civil liberties issues. There were violent factions in support of women's equality. There were certainly violent factions in support of black civil rights. Doesn't mean that the majority supports them, but it's a fairly inevitable consequence.
I am rather taken aback that you equate the election of a black president with this issue. That being said, I am hearing from friends that some groups - and I have no idea how widespread it is, but there are certainly individuals in Texas and some have said in other states too - are arguing that states should secede rather than 'put up with' a black president. I have no words.
Wendy
