[PLUG-TALK] Remove Obama from office!
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Sat Dec 27 20:03:12 UTC 2008
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Michael Robinson wrote:
> Insofar as same sex unions will give same sex couples the ability to
> adopt, it is legally equivalent to a civil marriage license. I'm not
> homophobic just because I believe that the state shouldn't be in the
> business of recognizing same sex couples. I've seen that same sex
> unions don't work and they are harmful to society IMO. Same sex union
> and same sex "marriage" threatens the family which is a necessary
> societal institution.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you oppose same sex
unions because you see them as a threat, well, that's fear. And fear of
homosexuality or homosexual relationships is what we mean when we write
"homophobia".
> And again Jeme, marriage is a religious term. If it weren't, no
> organized religion would require a couple to go through a religious
> marriage ceremony to be "married."
But you can have a legal marriage without going through a religious
ceremony, so what gives?
Also, there are plenty of religions that fully support homosexual
relationships and marriages performed by clergy in those religions are
also recognized by the state (so long as they meet certain legal
requirements -- so it's a matter of law, not anyone's god).
> I'm not against someone if they happen to be homosexual. I am against
> them if they try to hijack the word marriage and demand state sanctioned
> civil unions.
Seems to me that you mean "or" not "and" here.
> This is right up there with someone demanding that the state marry them
> to their brother, sister, or dog.
Well, certainly it isn't.
Most absurd first, we do not have any legal mechanism for verifying the
consent of dogs. Indeed, there is some good information that leads some
people to believe that most of what a dog appears to prefer is simple
conditioning and would qualify as coercion and thus make any legal
contract void. Nobody's going to allow a person to marry a dog just like
nobody's going to allow someone to marry a child. They are not recognized
as legally autonomous.
As for siblings, there is very little need for a legal recognition of
marriage between them. Their familial bond already allows many of the
important rights granted to married couples including hospital visitation
and default inheritance (oft-cited as important needs for same-sex
couples). Indeed, with the exception of joint tax returns, I think
siblings can garner, with a little doing, pretty much all of the legal
rights of a married couple. So it's kind of a moot point.
J.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list