RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] southpark speaks the truth

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> I have the feeling that most normal folks couldn't care less; 
> it's just
> that these two groups have become very vocal in the last few months.

*ahem* decades... This isn't a new issue, it's just now making it to the state legislatures in the past few years.

> And there's the problem of one group pushing their beliefs on 
> the other;
> it goes both ways in this case.  

That's a key point, and goes with the bit at the end here...

> Anyone care to explain to this liberal how gay marriage causes
> "deflation" in already existing heterosexual marriages?  I 
> really don't
> understand this argument at all.

This is the key reason you don't understand the opposing viewpoint, because you don't understand what marriage means to the other party. Marriage, outside of the legal implications, has very strong religious ties, your religion very much determines the nature of your marriage. Taking it from the Christian viewpoint, since that's the one I represent anyway, it is a bond you commit yourself to in the eyes of the Lord, sort of a contract with all the commandments about marriage. The "Holy bonds of matrimony", so to speak, do not belong with sin. Marriage to cover up adultry, for example, is considered disgraceful, as it detracts from the importance of that marriage. It is a rite of passage in a relationship, and bringing sin into it is contrary to the whole spirit of it. A homosexual marriage is basing its foundation on a sin.

Compare that with the argument on the other side. They want the term. NOT the meaning, just the word, they want to make their own meaning, call it the same thing, and act like they're just exercising their rights as free citizens. - Keep in mind "they" is the group, you included, who feel there is something wrong with the system as it stands. I know several people who actually are homosexuals, and out of all of them, only one gives a damn about the term.

So the problem? A few people, some of which aren't involved in the matter anyway, decided it was unfair that a term did not include them. (About as ludicrous as if they demanded everyone be called "heterosexual" irregardless of orientation, just to be fair.)

That said, the reason I don't feel it affects anyone is the distinction between a church marriage and a legal marriage. There is a clear distinction between who has which of those. When the authority they have was vested in them by God, vs. when the authority is the state of Missouri (or Nevada more often). One has religious meaning, and as such is what I believe in as holy matrimony. The other is a legal ceremony to acknowledge a love relationship, and is wonderful, but does not bear the religious weight the other does. We already have this distinction, and so long as there is never a mandate from the government saying anyone who wants to be married in my church must be allowed to do so, I am not affected by the legal marriage. More logically, I think marriage should be entirely within the church though, and the legal aspects should be relegated to Civil Unions. As such you could get married, much as the mormons do, however you want to, but the law doesn't get involved. Then if you want the tax breaks, insurance discounts, etc., you have to get a Civil Union in addition to marriage.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion