Knowing the enemy
Aug. 8th, 2012 01:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
From a comment on tumblr:
No, it's not that they think allowing gay marriage (actually, allowing legal recognition of such, I first attended a gay marriage ceremony in the 70s!) will *cause* people to marry animals/objects/etc.
It's that they think gays marrying is *morally equivalent* to those other things. And thus, if we give legal recognition of same sex marriages, we'd not be able to deny legal recognition to the others.
It's an important point, because it makes a *huge* difference in the arguments that you can *try* to change their minds with. It also avoids you looking "stupid" to these folks by arguing against a stand they don't have.
A lot of people are saying that Gays being aloud to marry will cause people to marry animals and objects. Well they already do that !
No, it's not that they think allowing gay marriage (actually, allowing legal recognition of such, I first attended a gay marriage ceremony in the 70s!) will *cause* people to marry animals/objects/etc.
It's that they think gays marrying is *morally equivalent* to those other things. And thus, if we give legal recognition of same sex marriages, we'd not be able to deny legal recognition to the others.
It's an important point, because it makes a *huge* difference in the arguments that you can *try* to change their minds with. It also avoids you looking "stupid" to these folks by arguing against a stand they don't have.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-08 06:00 pm (UTC)"Mutual consent."
If it isn't part of the legal definition of marriage, it should be. Heck, let's go crazy and add "uncoerced" just to make sure.
The idea being that since animals and objects can not consent to marriage, nobody can marry them. "Uncoerced" means that I can't force somebody to marry me with a shotgun. All that would be necessary to finish it off is something that makes it clear that parents can't marry their child off, although I'd allow for something that translated as, "you get first chance when he turns eighteen."
no subject
Date: 2012-08-08 07:49 pm (UTC)Of course, I'm one of the folks who thinks forcing the Mormons to give it up was wrong (not that there weren't problems with the way they did (and some still *do*) do it, but the basic concept isn't wrong.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-11 07:18 pm (UTC)Which is fine with me; they're entitled to their own opinions. But I think people using the phrase 'biblical marriage' should read the Bible and find out what it actually says about marriage.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-11 07:40 pm (UTC)One was that people were discouraged (strongly) from reading the Bible on their own and drawing their own conclusions from it. That was something that only "trained professionals were supposed to do. Because you might get "confused" (and start thinking you knew better than your priest).
Well, guess what a major "tenet" of most of the bad kind of fundie churches is...
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 11:47 pm (UTC)