I'm not sure I am getting your meaning here.....But what I will say is that I personally don't find legalizing same sex marriage to be a moral issue.....Did you mean how far in general, or something more specific? RobOriginally Posted by Alan
I'm not sure I am getting your meaning here.....But what I will say is that I personally don't find legalizing same sex marriage to be a moral issue.....Did you mean how far in general, or something more specific? Rob
No one knows how far evolution will take us. My great grandparents would be completely blown away by our world today. And the "no more!" point for me is not significant. For me, having a civil process & democratically elected representatives make the civil laws we abide by, as well as having the rights of initiative & referendum, are what's important to me; the process, not an end point.
My mind has been changed on myriad issues, but not on the manner in which we as a nation establish our laws. My own personal stance on issues is mine alone, and not important to our overall social well being. My personal code of ethics and morals are often well represented in our laws, though not always. I work to engage our electeds to change those I wish to see change. I love our system, and generally applaud our societal procession of change.
If society decides that it is so enlightened as to change the traditional concept of marriage to include same sex couples, will it continue to evolve in it's enlightenment to include multiple spouses and close relatives, all in the name of human and civil rights? And if not, why not?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
At what point in the timeline of human evolution do you pinpoint "traditional" marriage? It has changed countless times since its emergence as an idea, and is practised in many different ways in most societies.
Let's say over the last 200 or so years on the North American continent.
Oh what the hell, let's include South and Central America and Europe as well.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I'm thinking how right you are about how society has changed in just my lifetime. I remember my mother's second husband, who I did not get along with at all, who was extremely conservative - I think he would just have a stroke to see an African American as President of the United States, and to have gay marriage be legal in Iowa.....(he was from Iowa) - I just don't think he could have dealt with either of these things.....Or to have gay men and lesbians server openly in the military - much of the social change I applaud would just throw him completely off. Rob PS I should add he passed on of a stroke in 1989.
Wow! Well, not being a cultural anthropologist, I did some looking around (aka Ask the Google), and this article by Stephanie Coontz, a professor in WA state, sums up the changes in last 250 years in western cultures:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...dorsement.html
Notable for me:
1. Marriage for love rather than arranged by parents.
2. Marriage of those previously banned from marriage-the "feeble minded" & interracial couples.
3. The recognition of women as human beings in marraige, ending our status as property.
4. Ditto our inheritance rights.
5. Sexual privacy & access to contraception.
6. Equality of rights within a marriage, especially ending the belief that we cannot be raped by our legal spouse.
I find gender to be irrelevant as a characteristic in people. I know many people who claim one of several gender identities, and some who claim more than one gender identity. Gender is a social construct that does not mirror genetic or genital configuration.
Thus for me, marriage is a contract between three parties: two adults and the state. I don't care what the gender identities of those adults are, any more than I care about their racial, ethnic, religious identities, their physical, economic, family or political status. If a childless Republican Pagan wants to marry a Libertarian divorced Catholic parent of 12 and live as a transgendered couple, who the heck am I to care? I care if they stop at the red light, encourage their children to be kind to others, pay their taxes, vote in our elections, and laugh at my jokes.
I agree with this except that I don't believe the state should be an equal party in the contract. It's only goal should be to arbitrate disputes arising from the other two parties and not be involved in the validity of the contract itself.
In my mind, the only real question in the entire debate is, if we think the state should be a party to the contract, do we have an expectation that it will approve all forms of marriage or are some restrictions right and proper?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Just really curious.....What is your objection to the state being a party in the contract, and how would you change things then so that the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be granted to those legally marrying - sexual orientation aside? I'm talking transfer of assets upon death, that kind of thing. Rob
I guess it depends on how you define 'the state'. If you're talking about the several states mentioned in our constitution, I think it's only right and proper for them to set standards for social contracts within their jurisdictions. If you're talking about the federal government, then my objection is that it should not be in their purview. By what right does it choose not to accept a legal contract originating in one of it's states?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote