The diversity train chugs along
Posted by PTepoorten, November 12, 2008 
Comments(4)
Comments(4)
It’s revenge time for the “No on 8″ folks: A California musical theater director has been forced to step down for contributing to the upholding of the state’s gay marriage ban.
Proponents of gay marriage have even set up a Web site: Anti-gay blacklist.
Subtle.
And thus the championing of diversity continues, provided that diversity doesn’t conflict with diversity, in which case diversity will not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form.
I might be being a little naive here but I don’t think that the problem at hand is necessarily gay marriage, but that a normal marriage is recognized by the government.
That’s the church and state being not very divided at all. I think if a man and a woman, animal, vegetable or mineral would like to make their relationship official in the eyes of the state that should be a separate contract/civil union from marriage.
Who can be married could remain within the jurisdiction of the church. That way everybody is happy, right?
Indeed. As long as government is in the “marriage” business, we will have a blurring of the lines between church and state. In fact, government really has no business whatsoever sanctioning a “marriage.” Government should only be in the business of recognizing civil unions in whatever form(s) society deems of value.
When the gay community asks government to sanction their marriages, they are really seeking approval from an institution without the power to give it. And, as religions feel more and more pressure from government attempting to dictate the definition of marriage, it will only cause more and more distance and resentment between religion, state, and the gay community.
Civil unions also come with exactly the same benefits of marriage and have much broader support from Americans than gay marriage.
It is the gay community that continues to insist on “marriage,” which is essentially asking the government to use its power to force change within the church. Just as people don’t like religion calling the shots in government, they too don’t care for government calling the shots in their religion. Hence, the disconnect and building hatred.
Than again, you (perhaps accidentally) also beg the question in your comment: Where does it end? Do we really want to get to the point where we are “recognizing” a relationship between a person and an asparagus? Less extreme, polygamy?
People will be more comfortable with civil unions when we can define a societal standard. Should it be restricted simply to two people? As many people as desire it? People and animals? Two animals? Once you start redefining what a union is, what then isn’t acceptable? Any argument that can be made for homosexual civil unions can be made for any union you can imagine.
It’s a conundrum.
I think my animal, vegetable, mineral comment might be stretching it a little far:) Let’s just say 2 humans.
I don’t want to skirt the issue but I think polygamy would be a separate discussion. Since polygamy is not so much who you can marry but how many marriages you can have.
Well, it’s absurd and it isn’t. Guaranteed that somewhere down the line someone will call you a vegecist.