HEY THIS PAGE IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
Stop! This is a filtered page, which means it contains content that is more inappropriate and/or disturbing than usual. Be sure you understand the implications of filtered pages before continuing.
Marriage as Religious Covenant
Some people define marriage solely in religious terms: marriage is the union of one man and one woman (to the exclusion of all others) blessed by God. This definition does not allow the possibility of homosexual marriage. End of story.
There is no way to refute this definition, because it is based on faith. It is not historically true (the Old Testament did permit men to have multiple wives), it is not true across cultures (Islam -- or possibly just sects of Islam -- permit polygamous marriage), and it may be scripturally ambiguous (people who call themselves Christian still fight about the matter). But many Christians firmly believe the above definition, and no secular argument can be made to refute it.
My attitude is that we should not bother trying. So long as homosexuals get the rights associated with marriage -- including the rights to raise children, apply for shared benefits, and declare each other as next-of-kin -- it does not matter what we call the set of rights. To fight over this word "marriage" wins us many enemies and earns few benefits. Just as Islamic polygamous marriages are not recognised in America, we cannot expect other countries to recognise queer civil unions outside our country.
Of course, saying this makes me a traitor to the gay rights cause, on par with the self-hating blacks who opposed desegregation and self- hating women who oppose gender equality. This may be true, but it is also true that if we expect others to respect our perversions we had better be prepared to respect theirs. I am unconvinced that a culture war (where one side annhiliates the other) is a good solution.
Livejournal URL: http://lonelyache.livejournal.com/4793.html
Mood: Not specified