Instead of a meme

[madfilkentist]

A number of people have been reposting a meme supporting the right of people to get married regardless of whether their sex is the same or different. This meme is specifically for people who are married, which I'm not, so I couldn't post it within the rules anyway. More to the point, I think that repeating someone else's words isn't a good way to

Comments

[mdyesowitch]

You could do what I did and circumvent the whole thing by posted a link to the ballot questions on same sex marriage; although you can argue that, by now, anyone who had an opinion on this matter and lives in an affected state is probably already aware of the ballot issues and has decided which way to vote.

[madfilkentist]

As with all my posts, I'm more interested in affecting how people think than how they vote.

[mdyesowitch]

It's hard to bring many of these conversations up to the level of 'how people think' in many cases, regardless of how they think, they react on a level below thought.

One of my friends was solidly anti gay marriage. But when my husband pointed out to him what the rights and responsibilities of "marriage" were, he agreed on a point-by-point basis that they should be allowed; and yet his final conclusion was still that they shouldn't be allowed to marry, even though he thought they should have the same legal rights as married couples. How they were supposed to get these rights since marriage was out and civil unions don't convey the same rights was left unexplored. I suppose he felt that civil unions could be redefined, but that was never mentioned.

[madfilkentist]

People seldom quickly change their minds on an idea which they've held for a long time, no matter how convincing the argument they hear. Nor should they, until they've had a chance to consider the argument carefully and weigh it against everything else they know.

You never know which argument will convince people of something, or how long it will take after they've heard it. The more different angles people hear on an issue, they more likely they are to come to a reasoned conclusion, if they have any inclination at all toward reasoning.

[browngirl]

That *is* an excellent article; I amended my post to add it. Thank you for pointing me to it.

[phillip2637]

You're right about that being an excellent article. Taking things that are injurious to people and treating them solely as thought experiments is a nasty form of decadence.

As for the meme, I didn't elaborate because the two things I saw it as saying were aligned exactly with my views: I don't feel threatened by gay marriage and I believe that those who present it that way are looking to rationalize bigotry. Why re-post it at all? I didn't analyze my motive at the time, but probably because I realized I hadn't said anything of the kind lately and it does seem to need saying periodically.

But, as often happens, thank you for making me think about it. :-)

[tigerbright]

Well said. And thank you for sharing the article.

[blaurentnv]

I've been wondering why the government has a right to regulate marriage in the first place.

[madfilkentist]

The one legitimate reason for government involvement is to ensure that the parties meet their obligations to any children, and live in a legal framework where they can meet those obligations. It's reasonable to set up some legal defaults for that purpose.

But beyond that, nothing.

[blaurentnv]

Since many kids are born out of wedlock and there are established ways to ensure their care, I don't buy this one. I believe that the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments apply and (at least) the Federal Government has no business being involved in marriage. Each state's constitution would have to be examined; the careful phrasing of the 1st amendment allows states to interfere in religious choices.