Forgive me for not truly commenting on your post. I came over here to just “find” you and let you know that I miss having you as part of our conversation.

It’s hard to talk about the things we’re talking about without hurting feelings and offending sometimes. I’m trying to make my points as clearly and un-emotionally as possible…but what can I say? I’m not always successful. It seems I lost you when I wrote a post that came from frustration…full of generalizations that I didn’t back up. Please forgive?

I hope you’ll come back over and participate again. Your input was always fair and kind and well thought out.

Daiquiri

This was an excellent write up. I prepared a response but it turned out to be quite lengthy, so I posted it at Opine.

Just a few quick thoughts (having said quite a bit there), I agree on many points.

Leonard,

The LDS commentary on Prop 8 I think answers your question, I believe. It states that the church is not against CU’s,

“The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

It also outlines the reasons for this particular move.

Again, I’ve taken quite the liking to that document and have made a series of it at Opine also. But to sum up, I think the compelling point of marriage is its ability to point people to the lifestyle and commitment that will best fulfill their own capacity and responsibility to children. Its not about oppression, implicit or even unintentional, as the questions of rights have so many possible solutions. Its just that marriage means something, and those that know what it means are more likely to be successful with it.

I just wonder if there is anything more.

If not, this seems like much ado about nothing.(Or at least not very much.)

I think the main aim of those people, is to prevent the societal appropriation of the word “marriage” for uses that they feel are at odds with its sacred nature and character.

Such people may be sympathetic to the injustice homosexuals are facing. But they don’t like the term “marriage” being re-defined with society’s blessing.

Could someone who supports civil unions (with all the same benefits as marriage), but opposes same-sex marriage, explain to me why?

This seems increasingly common (esp. among us Mormons), and for the life of me, I really don’t get it.

I just don’t get the logic of saying its vitally important to oppose the one, but the other is no biggy.

On the point of marriage licences and the law of chastity: I think it would be simple – we simply trust people to be honest about whether or not they are married. Her in Taiwan people are married if and when they announce to at least two witnesses that they are married. While you can register it, and most do fill out a form for the witness to chop (sign with their stamp), it is not required. They are legal married the moment they say they are. Generally speaking, if were going to trust people on all the other interview questions, I don’t see why we can’t trust them on this. After all, it not like I ever asked to see their license.

While I agree with the poster who said that actually getting the government out of the “marriage business” is even less likely than winning the anti-same-sex fight, I’ve long agrees with Seth’s point. And frankly, all the arguments supporting the importance of “traditional marriage” are, to me, the exact reason why supporters of marriage generally should be supportive of same-sex marriage too.

While not traditional, it is profoundly “conservative”, in the sense that it reinforces that marriage (and its theoretical long-term, commited, monogamous nature) are a good thing.

I mean, some people are gay. Most of them are going to accept that and be in homosexual relationships. Many of them are going to have children (in a variety of way; previous hetero marriage, adoption, etc.)

Which should we try to promote? Long-term, commited relationship, with stability and protection for both partner and children? Or should we promote short-term promiscuity with instabilty for partners and children even if they choose commitment and stabilty?

Beyond that, it becomes morality (in the religious sense) and emotion over the word “marriage”, which is why I support separating the civil from the religious.

Finally (I tend to be long-winded) on the religious moral point, I’d rather try and promote fidelity and commitment for homosexual (as with heterosexual). Barring conversion to my faith, they’re not likely to go for celibacy (and even then…). But it would be much easier to promote those “goods” (fidelity and commitment) if we supported it rather than fight against it.

My main point in response was that all of your concerns can be addressed by simply writing the civil union code correctly. The arguments of promoting stability, family, children, etc., just aren’t relevant because they can all be promoted just fine without a formal “marriage” licensing process.

I thought that your modest proposal was to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Perhaps we’re in agreement — the marriage / civil union code needs to be written correctly, but I’m arguing that the only way to accomplish that is by looking at the issues I’ve been raising. That’s why I think they’re at the heart of the discussion.

That’s my whole point. This shouldn’t be a marriage issue in the first place.

My main point in response was that all of your concerns can be addressed by simply writing the civil union code correctly. The arguments of promoting stability, family, children, etc., just aren’t relevant because they can all be promoted just fine without a formal “marriage” licensing process.

I’m unclear on your other objections.