Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Maybe I live in such a jaded place that I'm out of touch with the homespun salt of the earth types -- you know -- the smart ones (Hi BRC!) but if taxes aren't going to go up then why the fuck would these 47% care if the two guys in the neighborhood are married versus "civil unioned"? I mean it's not like the abortion issue or other stuff where people honestly consider a zygote-baby is being murdered. How does the gay marriage hurt anyone? I'm perplexed by the explanation, "marriage should be just for, you know, a man and women". Well, excuse me but it should be sunny every day too (Hi Bunny!). And it's no excuse that the Constitution doesn't envision same sex marriage. Didn't we once have laws that said blacks and whites couldn't marry? Anti-misceg......whatever that term was. Now that it's clear that mixed marriages didn't produce the feared abomination of the races, can not people see that gay marriage simply doesn't hurt anyone either?
|
I don't have a good handle on this from the Religious Right perspective because it is relatively new as a political issue, but it seems to have a couple of components.
1. I've been told there are statistics showing that in European countries that allow same sex marriage or civil unions, fewer couple are actually getting married vs. living together and having kids. I haven't been shown said statistics nor have I gone looking for them. That is their support for believing that same sex marriage harms traditional marriage.
2. I've also heard that people fear that churches would be prevented from preaching that homosexual sex is a sin if same sex marriage were sanctioned by the state.
3. I've been told, quite sincerely, by the few people passionately about "defending traditional marriage"with whom I've discussed this that it isn't about homosexual sex as a sin (this is response to my questioning whether they think gays will stop having sex merely because they can't get married), but about marriage as defined in the Bible. This does not explain why the state amendments didn't all say civil unions would be OK so it doesn't seem to be the reason followed by very many. Tony Campolo, a "neo-evangelical" (catch word for an evangelical Christian not part of the Religious Right) from Sebby's neck of the woods, has suggested separating the state and religious functions of marriage -- i.e. go to City Hall for a civil ceremony and then, if you want a religious marriage, go to a pastor. Then the criteria for each could be different. As you may guess, his suggestion is viewed as a bit controversial.
The Rev. Fugee Brother and I are able to agree that Christians should be spending their time trying to show Christ's love rather than trying to get the 10 commandments posted in schools and government facilities or amending constitutions to ban same sex marriage.
ETA: The Fugee Brother and I may have a different perspective on the issue because we have a gay uncle and he has two gay men in his congregation.
