Text 3289, 202 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 13:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3762.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <2cOdnaioF_CsdjTZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <tvk3a25e9g569kboqqafddt66al5vajr6k@4ax.com>

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C0CF598D002C842FF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:57:41 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <ouudnYw0XP26RDTZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> 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?

I'm sorry Amy, I forgot to answer the last part of that question.

To be honest, I wouldn't feel a burning shame, alrgely because what is 
between me and my wife is our business.  For the record, we were married ina 
church too, and I consider that part more significant than the civil aspect 
from an emotional perspective, not a financial one.

You asked me personally, so I gave you a personal answer...but please recall 
that I was on this thread simply to represent another point of view.


>>
>> 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.

Not really. I as merely commenting that your example was taking something 
away from one group rather than adding to another.

> 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.

We aren't talking about limiting a persons actions or behavior; we're 
talking about whether the sensitivity to one group to use a specific word 
out-weighs the sensitivity of another group.

>>>>>> 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.

Youra marriage is not less valid thanmine in any context.  Your marriage is 
no less legal than anyone else's.  Your marriage may or may not be less ... 
sanctified by God(?) according to a friend of mine.  Again, I am reluctant 
toput words in my friend's mouth.  I'm anticipating her response and so 
please take it that way.


> "Marriage" does _not_ imply religious context.

It does to mosty people that are married in a church.  They are married "In 
the site of God" by someone of religious significance.  If it didn't imply 
any religios context to some, then "Civil union" would be adequate for 
everyone.

>>>>>> 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?

Again...not my objection (whyt do people never believe me when I say I'm a 
contrarian?)

My point was that when I said some people can't consider gays married in a 
religous sense, you replied

"So, they don't have to do it!"

But that would in be withholding the social acceptance and connotation that 
you seem to be requiring by using the term marriage.

>>>>>>> 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.

I believe they view them as "Common law spouses."

> 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?

I think that they would respond that to date, marriages performed by
people of another faith are not seemingly redefining the meaning of the
word under which they were bound spiritually.

> 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'm reluctant to speak for her on this.

> 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.

And yet if you met her you would find her completely unconcerned with your 
marriage.  If your marriage works for you, fine. Just don't redefine hers.


> 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.

There is absolutely no hatred in this woman (or her husband as far as I can 
tell).
                                                                               
       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)