Text 3269, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 12:54:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3742.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C0CF598D002C842FF0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <tvk3a25e9g569kboqqafddt66al5vajr6k@4ax.com>
>>On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:57:41 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <ouudnYw0XP26RDTZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C0CEF71E0015EC01F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:11:32 -0400, Carl wrote
>> (in article <gJmdnW8NU8979jTZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C0CEC5FD000A684AF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>> 
>>>> what about gay couples who are atheists but still want
>>>> to have the benefit of being able to say that they are married?
>>> 
>>> Why would it be terrible if they said they were "joined" or some other 
>>> word?
>> <<
>> How would you feel if I said you weren't allowed to call your wife you 
>> "wife"
>> any longer?  That you had to refer to her as your "civil partner"?  And 
>> that
>> you could not call yourself married, but your next door neighbors were
>> allowed to?  Honestly, can you tell me that you _wouldn't_ feel a burning
>> shame, that you were somehow unworthy of partaking in a normal part of 
>> life
>> that most everyone else is permitted to, that you were a second-class
>> citizen?
> 
> 1)  I am currently allowed to use the term. It's not removing a right that 
> they have. <<

This seems to be a deliberate refusal to consider the feelings of gay people. 
 Why should black people be able to sit anywhere besides the back of the bus? 
 They've never _been_ permitted to before, so we're not taking away anything 
they've ever had.  So it's not like they could _miss_ it or anything.

>>>>> From where I sit, the issue seems to be a desire for equality, pure
>>>>> and simple.  A civil union is not a marriage.
>>>>> "Marriage" has a social connotation that "civil union" does not.
>>> 
>>> The distinction is purely religious though, since from a legal 
>>> perspective
>>> they would be equal. <<
>> 
>> Equal yet different.  The social connotations of "marriage" are different
>> from the social connotations of "civil union."
> 
> Yes...exactly...the distinction is one of religious significance. <<

NO, it isn't.  Is my marriage any less valid than yours because it was 
performed by a justice of the peace rather than a religious official?  No - I 
am still _just_ as married as you are.  The fact that it wasn't performed in 
a religious context doesn't make my marriage a civil union.

"Marriage" does _not_ imply religious context.

>>>>> Some people...because of their faith... do not ... CAN NOT ... consider 
>>>> a
>>> gays married in a religious sense.  To do so would be against their 
>>> faith. <<
>> 
>> So, they don't have to do it!
> 
> Then isn't that de facto not granting the social connotation you want? <<

Huh?  No.  If your church doesn't want to perform same-sex marriage 
ceremonies, then I doubt that any gay people would choose to get married 
there.  But what's your objection to the church down the street performing 
same sex marriage ceremonies?

>>

>>>>>> Marriage to them is not just a "social connotation," it's a religious 
>>>> one
>>> and there is a lot of history through the ages that go along with that. 
>>> <<
>> 
>> So are you saying that atheists who marry, or anyone who marries within a
>> church that _permits_ gays to marry, is less married than you?
> 
> Please note that my comments were always my interpretation of some friends 
> views.  ("Marriage to them...").  With that in mind, I've tried to interpret 
> their views as fairly as I understand them. <<

Okay, so what's your interpretation of how they view people who have been 
married at City Hall, without benefit of clergy?  You just can't cut out a 
whole segment of the population and say that their marriages are invalid 
because you (or they) disagree with the person who performed the ceremony, or 
think that someone else was more qualified to do so.  Conversely, if you 
accept the validity of marriages performed by someone other than an ordained 
member of _your own faith_, then what's the issue if an ordained member of 
some other faith performs same sex marriage ceremonies?  It seems to me that 
you can't have it both ways.  People who feel that their religion's 
definition of marriage is the only valid one are therefore apparently 
rejecting all other religions' marriage ceremonies as invalid.  Unless you 
tell me that they're simply picking and choosing, in which case there's no 
grounds to disallow same sex marriages, IMHO.

>> I don't know exacty how the one specific friend I'm thinking of would view 
> this, so I'm reluctant to answer this.  I'm ***guessing*** that she would 
> consider an atheist marrying along the same lines as "Common law" spouse. <<

Really?  What about someone who holds religious beliefs not in line with 
hers. and who simply happened to get married by a justice of the peace or at 
City Hall?  Or someone whose religious beliefs _are_ in line with hers, and 
happened to get married at City Hall as a matter of convenience?  Where does 
she draw the line, and how does she justify it?  I find it quite offensive 
that someone would view my marriage as less valid than theirs because the 
officiant doesn't meet her high standards.

Honestly, it seems like the people who object to same sex marriage are simply 
making it up as they go along.  It's a lot of energy to put towards hatred 
that could be much better spent on making this world a better place.

Amy
                                                                           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)