Mini-rant

[cosmolinguist]

If I hear any more idiots say that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, I may have to break something. The same goes for the ones who say that allowing homosexuals to marry will somehow injure their heterosexual unions.

I didn't know all the members of sexual minorities were so threatening! I know several myself and have always found them to be normal ... or weird. Nice, or mean. Funny, or boring. Same as the straight people I know. In fact, for some people I know, I couldn't necessarily tell you what their sexual preference is. It doesn't really come up in conversation all the time. Most straight people's lives don't revolve around sex, and neither do most not-straight people's.

I'd write more, but I have to go to class now. Let me just say ... Our "Founding Fathers" said that everyone is created equal, and even though they meant white Christian men who owned property, they wrote it anyway. For the last 200-some years we've been trying to make it true, so that even if you're not a man, not rich, not white, or don't believe you were created at all, you can still share and enjoy the freedoms laid out for us.

Comments

[kwakhed.livejournal.com]

very well written!!! :-D i don't think the sentiment could be stated any more clearly...

[autumnsshadow.livejournal.com]

It's all in the wording...the best solution would be to call all marriages civil unions in the government's eyes and then let churches decide what "marriage" is. The problem is that government has adopted the word marriage to represent something completely different than what it means to a church. All they'd have to do is remove the word marriage from legalese and I think a large number of rowdy Christians wouldn't be so up in arms.
Everyone is saying "marriage"...but the Christian side of the house is talking "religious marriage" while the gay rights side of the house is talking "civil marriage"...so everyone's right in their own way(literally, not necessarily morally).

[cosmolinguist]

Removing the word marriage from legalese would be a good idea, I think. The distinction is important. The Christians have gotten used to thinking of their religion as the unofficial state religion and they probably still wouldn't be happy. They'd complain that it cheapens marriage, or something. Not that I care about making them happy, the problem's that the President of the United States happens to be one of those people. He wants to amend the Constitution in a way that permanently fuses the legal and religious senses of the word (something else that bothers me to no end). The idea you mentioned is a good one, but we'll have to wait for at least one new president before it could happen.

Re:

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

The Christians have gotten used to thinking of their religion as the unofficial state religion

Like it or not (and I don't like it) they are correct to think that.

The idea you mentioned is a good one, but we'll have to wait for at least one new president before it could happen.

Or just move to Canada... ahh Toronto... its the new Gay Vegas!

Re:

[cosmolinguist]

I know they're correct to think it. And it ticks me off! And I am a Christian!

But, I'm straight too. How boring.

[setharoo.livejournal.com]

Amen, sister.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

If I hear any more idiots say that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, I may have to break something. The same goes for the ones who say that allowing homosexuals to marry will somehow injure their heterosexual unions.

I didn't know all the members of sexual minorities were so threatening!

What pisses me off is that the queer-lobby has completely abandoned the polyamorous, and seem fine to accept marriage as a 'union of two people' which blatantly discriminates against those who are sexually inclined to group unions.

[cosmolinguist]

I agree, it's very lame. They're probably just thinking that something is better than nothing, and the idea of altogether abandoning current norms for what constitutes a marriage probably won't go over so well when the people in charge are unwilling to make any relatively minor concessions.

We're a long way from equality, I know.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Maybe its just me, but I find the idea of screwing over one group (the polyamorous) to further ones (homosexuals) own ends very emotionally tiring.

Then again, I also think that a bad law is worse than no law, and that a change that institutionalises discrimination is a bad change.

[evil-grapefruit.livejournal.com]

Im was married and it never hurt the "sacredness" of my marriage! Bah!

Jenn