home go links go books go opinion go gallery go projects go resumé go
about this site
book reviews
"to read" list
tech books
search books
books archive
last 10 posts
cluetrain (mirrored)
image auth
search engine hits
  hit history
indexer stats
user agent list
HTML (view)
  (most up-to-date)
MS Word (dl)
code examples

May 18, 2004

an intriGAYing argument   (opinion, quote)

"I believe that no religion should ever [expect] anyone [outside their religion] to believe anything. Therefore, if gay couples wish to join in a lifelong [legally recognized] union [with legal rights identical to heterosexual couples], that should be their right to do so. However, [labelling this union] "marriage" is not a defense of their inalienable rights [as a ctizen], but an attack on those people's beliefs that hold marriage to be a sacred God-given gift. To insist on the term "marriage" is to [provoke unnecessary conflict with] those who hold that homosexuality is immoral. We are supposed to be a tolerant society, so where is the tolerance to be found in those who wish to [impose] their will on Bible-believing Christians and Jews?"

 -by J, taken out of context (additions mine, obviously, as they change or add to the original stated idea)

most of the stuff in that original post and the comments is garbage, but the above statement is an intriguing assertion, just as intriguing as the libertarian argument that marriage be privatized, or shifted from a legal status to that of a contractual agreement.

the best compromises leave both sides feeling as though they got taken. so from the religious POV, an immoral union would now be legal. and from the gay POV, they would have equal rights (which i realize requires legal changes, thanks cb) but wouldn't be labelled the same as hetero couples. who makes out like a bandit?

and, of course, then there's this:

There once was a guy named Dave,
Who kept a dead whore in his cave.
He said, "What the hell,
You get used to the smell,
And think of the money you save."

as well as Chris Rock's assertion that gay people should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of the married public. <troll>i do see one problem, though: when you're a rich gay person, which gay person takes the role of the gold digger? i guess the one with the least money... so shouldn't rich gay people be against gay marriage, because it would allow a gay gold digger legal recourse after divorce once the marriage is legally recognized? </troll> (Eddie, I want half!)

if i could have it my way, gay couples could have a mutual contractual obligation (yes, i take the libertarian stance) with exactly the same rights a heterosexual married couple has. insisting on the term "marriage" is inflammatory and counter-productive because that's not really what this is about, it's about equal rights. so if you're not going to argue for sweeping changes to laws controlling the institution of marriage, at least attack the legal premise that civil unions aren't equal to "legally married" unions, don't attempt to provoke conflict over a word... that's not in anybody's best interest! (this is also an interesting read)

Posted by yargevad at May 18, 2004 11:21 AM

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.