Jumping on the bandwagon....
Oct. 30th, 2008 10:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poltr1My variation:
Copy this sentence into your LJ if you're in a heterosexual marriage -- or have been at one time -- and you don't want it"protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
I initially sat this one out because I'm no longer married, and therefore thought I couldn't participate.
What a loaded statement this is. It implies that if a person doesn't support gay marriage, they're automatically a bigot.
Marriage has become an overloaded word in our society and culture. There's the legal context, the social context, and the religious context. All of them seem to have melded together.
I've known a few committed gay couples for some time. Somehow, it seems discriminatory to think that they can't unite for life with a ceremony, get the same benefits, and so on. What about civil unions? To me, that sounds like a second-class marriage -- it may have the same legal and social context as a marriage, but lacks the religious context.
I know, this flies in the face of the Judeo-Christian mores on which our society is based. But I think it's time we evolve from that which shackles us. Years ago, there were laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Those laws have since been stricken down.
Some folks on the far right worry that this would be a gateway to legalizing other types of relationships, e.g. bestiality. I don't believe so.
Copy this sentence into your LJ if you're in a heterosexual marriage -- or have been at one time -- and you don't want it"protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
I initially sat this one out because I'm no longer married, and therefore thought I couldn't participate.
What a loaded statement this is. It implies that if a person doesn't support gay marriage, they're automatically a bigot.
Marriage has become an overloaded word in our society and culture. There's the legal context, the social context, and the religious context. All of them seem to have melded together.
I've known a few committed gay couples for some time. Somehow, it seems discriminatory to think that they can't unite for life with a ceremony, get the same benefits, and so on. What about civil unions? To me, that sounds like a second-class marriage -- it may have the same legal and social context as a marriage, but lacks the religious context.
I know, this flies in the face of the Judeo-Christian mores on which our society is based. But I think it's time we evolve from that which shackles us. Years ago, there were laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Those laws have since been stricken down.
Some folks on the far right worry that this would be a gateway to legalizing other types of relationships, e.g. bestiality. I don't believe so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-31 03:10 pm (UTC)It implies that if a person doesn't support gay marriage, they're automatically a bigot.
I thought about this a bit. I guess there could be other reasons, from 'marriage as an institution is a mess' to 'it would cost employers more in insurance and thus be bad for the economy' (both statements I've seen more than one person make), but... I saw this meme as a response to California's Proposition 8, and that one really is fueled by bigotry, as were the similar but fortunately fizzling efforts in MA after same-sex marriage was legalized here. So that's the context I saw this phrasing in.
In the long run it would be good, if potentially difficult, if the concept of adults-forming-a-family could be freed from the massive baggage of 'marriage'. But right now when we're less than a week from California possibly dissolving a whole bunch of marriages (I really, really hope they don't), I think this meme was aimed at more proximate concerns.