Sunday, August 08, 2010

Prop 8 is gone

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but...
I had a discussion with several people who are glad same sex unions will be permissible.
They believe that the freedom of choice is up to the individuals.
Very noble sentiments. And not necessarily wrong, either.

When I end up asking about unions about any two consenting adults they say "yes."
Until I use points like, two adults siblings who want to get married, or an adult father and daughter who want to.

The reason they say those aren't good is because they are frowned upon by everyone.
Well, wasn't that true with the same sex thing?

Just wondering where does it stop?
Will it stop?
Is there a limit to freedoms?


Doorman-Priest said...

Just to summarise our Facebook conversation:

Some of the arguments have suggested that marriage shouldn't be the exclusive preserve of religious institutions. If the state recognises other forms of marriage outside of the church then why not single sex ones?

Does the example of familial marriage equate in any way to same sex relationships? There must be issues of consent, certainly, hence adult/children and human/animal marriage could not be countenanced. For good genetic reasons close familial relationships have long been frowned upon but that is not just a religious perspective.

I was also thinking of interracial marriage which 30-40 years ago, if put to a public vote, would have been outlawed even though to have done so would have been unconstitutional.

There is no reason other than human prejudice and right-wing mis-information to continue to prohibit same sex marriage. Do you know of any?

I commented elsewhere that in Lutheransm, where something is not expressly mentioned then someone could make a hermeneutical case for it which the church would have to debate and draw a conclusion on - as indeed it has done im many nations in favour of faithful, loving same-sex relationships.

As many people are now saying that the prohibitions to same-sex marriage today have been based on a holiness code which talks about cultic prostitution and not on faithful, consentual, loving adult relationships I can quite see how those national churches have drawn that conclusion.

Roland said...

I understand, DP.

Let's just take the 'genetic reason' argument. I know others who shudder at the thought of it happening, and use similar reasoning as you do.
I am curious.
If we neutered them and they agreed, would that help the situation?
Or is the argument against it, because they grew up together and going from provider and protector to something more in a partnership, something that doesn't make sense?

The interracial thing is just the other side of the adult/children dynamic.
Why is one okay and the other not?
What makes it so you draw your line in the sand there, compared to another place?

Not trying to put anyone on the defensive, just trying to understand why people pick "here but no further" to be in one place, where others pick another place.

Peace and Blessings.

Larry said...

Freedom has nothing to do with it. In fact, government being involved in marriage is anti-freedom. People should have the freedom to define their relationships as they see fit. Government granting legitimacy to those relationships through license or other forms of law basically forces us to accept those relationships on some level against our morals, judgments or whatever.

If I want to call my relationship with my dog a "twizbuzzle" that's my business but I can't/shouldn't be able to force anyone else to acknowledge it or think it's legitimate.

Marriage is a private (meaning non-governmental) matter. Everything related to marriage could be done with a private contract, no laws regarding marriage are necessary.

Arielle said...

Except, of course, for a contract to carry any legal weight it must have the force of the law to back it up.

Doorman-Priest said...

If we neutered them and they agreed, would that help the situation?

And we "yes but" to the point of silliness.

Roland said...

lol, Jack.
Just thought I'd ask.

Curious still why your line in the sand is better than the others.
(Not being silly, really curious)

avalon said...

I think the whole idea of marrige in general is pretty archaic, havent we evolved past it?

"Normal (I use this word loosely)" man and wife couples have run the good use of the word marrige into the mud. Its sooo much easier to attack a small, sub group then the bigger issue on whole. How straight couples disrespect marrige.

Roland said...

avalon, I thought marriage (as it was proscribed by someone) isn't archaic. But treating theories as facts can be archaic.

And who is attacking? Except possibly you in going after humans who make mistakes and cause messes?

I am just wondering why one person's idea and understanding are so much better than "the other guy's"

Bitterness does not become us.
We don't need to be bashing, but trying to understand a bit better.
(not saying your points on marriage and divorce are wrong, just a red herring to this topic)

Doorman-Priest said...

Have a quick look at this and follow the link.

Roland said...