What’s difficult to explain is that for some lesbians and gay men, having our relationships sanctioned and regulated by the state is hardly something to celebrate. It was only a few years ago that we were criminals in the eyes of the law simply because of whom we loved. As strangers to marriage for so long, we’ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.
Nothing to explain, you just like being roommates. That's great. First Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships were first argued 'separate, but equal', now they are considered more freeing then restrictive marriage? Marriage is restrictive for a reason. Why? Because you're held accountable and responsible for your family. So as a society we give you acknowledgment and support, which may include legal benefits.
It's all very selective, isn't it? If you know same-sex couples living in a state offering neutered marriage licenses, you should treat them EXACTLY as you would a heterosexual couple. I do NOT support shacking up or raising kids out of wedlock or fornication. So, time for those same-sex couples to demonstrate the "valuing" of marriage they professed. If they value marriage, then they'll look down upon unmarried sex, adultery, raising babies out of wedlock, shacking up, and divorce. Right? Right???
ReplyDeleteIf you know same-sex couples living in a state offering neutered marriage licenses, you should treat them EXACTLY as you would a heterosexual couple.
ReplyDeleteI think that is an entirely reasonable position to take.
Sure Phil, but you also think it is entirely reasonable for men and women to use the same public "men's" or "women's" restroom together.
ReplyDeleteYou also think that homosexuality is more intrinsic and relevant to identity than gender/sex when it comes to responsible procreation.
I'm sure a number of unreasonable items seem reasonable to you.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying, then, that Playful Walrus' stance here is unreasonable?
Leave it up to Phil to ignore the obvious.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter to me if you agree with Playful. It doesn't matter to me what particular statement you find "reasonable or not". And my explanation why is above.
Because before I could accept that agreeing with Playful means agreeing with you, that you'd at least have to agree with the full point that Playful made.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry Phil, the question is really do you "agree with the full point that Playful made", specifically, "If they value marriage, then they'll look down upon unmarried sex, adultery, raising babies out of wedlock, shacking up, and divorce. Right?"
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness, Playful asked first.