[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