?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon
vasaris
.:: ..::. .::..:...... .::

March 2014
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon [userpic]
Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us here today.

Having lifted this from this thread on Fandom_Wank I find that despite the fact that I don't think anyones reading this, I've got to rant a bit about it.

I don't understand why people think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. In the broadest sense I have a feel for why conservative, generally Christian groups have a problem with the idea of homosexuality and even why they would have difficulty with them marrying within the Church.

What I don't understand is their problem with legal marriage. Legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. Truthfully, they never have been the same thing.

Religious marriage is generally a ceremony, meant to join two people in the eyes of their deity as a unit. It is a vow of commitment made before (and occasionally to) the strongest judge a person may have available to them... their deity-of-choice.

Legal marriage, on the other hand, is a slip of paper saying that two people are joining their households and finances into a new, legal unit. This unit is responsible for the upkeep of said household -- finances, property, children (if they should have any), etc. Legal marriage brings tax and insurance benefits (or, in some cases penalties) that any two people who share responsibility should have the right to share. If I had a same-gendered partner, why shouldn't I have the right to make decisions about their welfare when we have joined our households? If I had an opposite-gendered partner, I could.

For centuries religious and legal marriage have tended to occur at the same time, leading to the confusion that many people seem to have about the issue. If I lived in a theocracy that would even make sense.

However, I live in the USA. Our government is not a theocracy. The civil side of marriage is just that, civil. It isn't religious, has nothing to do with religious taboos, and should be equally available to any two (or more, if for some bizarre reason you feel the need to join your finances with more than one person) people who desire to do so.

Current Mood: bitchybitchy
Comments

I concur. Though I honestly think that Mr. Card has a better position than most. I disagree with his position, but since he believe marriage is mainly to have kids, I have a bit more respect for him. At least he's willing to admit that by his definition of marriage, Aunt Ruth and Uncle Bob should have never gotten married, as they don't have any kids. Most anti-gay-marriage people will insist that gay shouldn't marry because they can't have kids, but don't hold the same position to any straight couples that also fall in that catagory. (Infertiles, those that choose not to, those that have had the opperation preventing them, et cetera.)

Although I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir

http://www.livejournal.com/users/vasaris/1387.html

...because it got too long for just a response.