Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasanuddin
This debate is over the wrong things. Look, as I said, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I was wed to the other-half of my heart, of now twelve years. The most important part of the event was not a slip of paper, a number, or bragging rights, it was to be in front of family (and God) to crystalize it.
<...>
Primarily marriage is about family, God, and society--legal aspects and verbal definitions are so trivial.
|
First, I appreciate you sharing your story, and congratulate you on being able to spend your life with the person you love. I also appreciate the overall positive tone of your post. I just want to comment briefly that (especially for people like me) god has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist, through and through... as are many of my closest friends and relatives. However, we still marry, as that's the social convention.
Either way, god plays about as much of a role in the event as the tooth fairy or easter bunny (or Thor, or Zeus, or Apollo, or any of the other thousands of figures laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology), but it's still a marriage all the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemit
What we could say is that while the naturalness or unnaturalness of same-sex partnerships might matter biologically, it doesn't matter socially, legally, or even religiously. We should be strong enough to be able to hold those two concepts in our minds and hearts at the same time: the biological versus all the others.
I think, Larv, I'm beginning to understand your frustration. Can anybody understand the dichotomy I'm trying to present here?
|
I think I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the conclusion you've drawn. Let me quickly explain.
When considering marriages or partnerships, biology is rather irrelevant, despite your suggestion above to the contrary. As you well know, we don't require that two opposite sex partners be reproductively viable before allowing them to marry. We don't disallow infertile people from marrying, or people who simply have no plans to ever have children. Or, look at the elderly... people in their 70s or 80s... They're allowed to marry without question, despite the impossibility of offspring conception from their pairing.
So, my point... the biology is not factored in... not one iota... for opposite sex couples, so it should not be factored in either for same sex couples either. Anyone who suggests biology should be relevant is offering a double standard... putting forth an inconsistent criterion... applying it to one group, but not the other... without a relevant secular reason for doing so.
