02-25-2004, 11:58 PM
Someone's mentioning bestiality, others polygamy, as results of the snowball growing ever larger.
I have to say I can't understand this. The way I see it: Marriage is between two consenting persons; two individuals. Whether they're men, women, black, white or blue, eat Snickers with a fork and knife, vote republican, or spell poorly... it's all irrelevant.
The "sanctity of marriage"? Please!
1. 50% of those who marry get a divorce. There *is* no sanctity left. Look at Britney Spears' wedding in Vegas a few weeks back. We must protect the sanctity of marriage? Sorry folks, but that boat has long sailed. It marooned off of Long Island, and the remaining survivors have voted each other off the island.
2. You want some people (those who are homosexual.. as opposed to "homosexual people") to have some sort of approved union, but you don't want to call it a "marriage". Alright, we'll call it a "morriage", and that'll be just fine then. It'll be just like a "marriage" but with people who are gay instead of straight. Sanctity my ass. You want it to be just like a marriage, but only for people who are gay, but it can't be called "marriage", it can just be identical to it. There is no sanctity in that which you can duplicate and rename. If there is sanctity in "marriage" then there would be sanctity in "morriage", and the people who are gay would not be allowed to "morry" either.
3. I'm also offended that, by excluding some people in marriage, you're "sanctifying" something. You're not sanctifying #$%&. You're acting like a bigot.
As I said at the start of my post: I don't understand this, I really don't. If I even could see some of your arguments, or could somehow understand how people can think like this and still consider themselves something else than a bigot, I wouldn't make these statements ("you're acting like ..."). Discriminating against some people will not sanctify marriage, it will sanctify discrimination.
I don't know the American judicial system enough. But I seem to remember this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Apparently, all men are not created equal if some can marry and some cannot.
Hell, I even know the pledge by heart:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)
With liberty(...) for all.
Doesn't these things mean anything to you? They mean a great deal to me; in fact I base my opinions on some of your historical documents and traditions, and I'm not even American.
I know I'm going to get my head cut off for this post, but I had to say something, because I just don't see how you, whom I hold in very high regard, could not only feel this way, but express it so openly.
Please, explain it to me. Make me understand.
I have to say I can't understand this. The way I see it: Marriage is between two consenting persons; two individuals. Whether they're men, women, black, white or blue, eat Snickers with a fork and knife, vote republican, or spell poorly... it's all irrelevant.
The "sanctity of marriage"? Please!
1. 50% of those who marry get a divorce. There *is* no sanctity left. Look at Britney Spears' wedding in Vegas a few weeks back. We must protect the sanctity of marriage? Sorry folks, but that boat has long sailed. It marooned off of Long Island, and the remaining survivors have voted each other off the island.
2. You want some people (those who are homosexual.. as opposed to "homosexual people") to have some sort of approved union, but you don't want to call it a "marriage". Alright, we'll call it a "morriage", and that'll be just fine then. It'll be just like a "marriage" but with people who are gay instead of straight. Sanctity my ass. You want it to be just like a marriage, but only for people who are gay, but it can't be called "marriage", it can just be identical to it. There is no sanctity in that which you can duplicate and rename. If there is sanctity in "marriage" then there would be sanctity in "morriage", and the people who are gay would not be allowed to "morry" either.
3. I'm also offended that, by excluding some people in marriage, you're "sanctifying" something. You're not sanctifying #$%&. You're acting like a bigot.
As I said at the start of my post: I don't understand this, I really don't. If I even could see some of your arguments, or could somehow understand how people can think like this and still consider themselves something else than a bigot, I wouldn't make these statements ("you're acting like ..."). Discriminating against some people will not sanctify marriage, it will sanctify discrimination.
I don't know the American judicial system enough. But I seem to remember this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Apparently, all men are not created equal if some can marry and some cannot.
Hell, I even know the pledge by heart:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)
With liberty(...) for all.
Doesn't these things mean anything to you? They mean a great deal to me; in fact I base my opinions on some of your historical documents and traditions, and I'm not even American.
I know I'm going to get my head cut off for this post, but I had to say something, because I just don't see how you, whom I hold in very high regard, could not only feel this way, but express it so openly.
Please, explain it to me. Make me understand.
