Klarinet Archive - Posting 000133.txt from 2004/11

From: "Scott Morrow" <scottdmorrow@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] RE: elections
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:37:22 -0500

I believe there are really two issues:
"Fear of undermining the sanctity of marriage" falls under the same category
as "fear of having evolved from apes". I think some people feel (or have
been led to believe) that accepting that it is perfectly natural for
same-sex couples to pair up would somehow suggest that humans are not
"divine".
I think the real (hidden) issue, though, is not philosophical or even
religious: "legalizing" same-sex marriages would require businesses and the
government to provide financial benefits to more people! (many institutions
have decided to do this, anyway).
If the wedding industry had a more powerful lobby, you could bet same-sex
marriages would be legalized quickly!
-Scott Morrow

>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:25:42 +0000
To: klarinet@-----.org
From: Joe Fasel <jhf@-----.gov>
Subject: Re: [kl] elections
Message-Id: <1099524342l.24980l.0l@-----.gov>

Rien,

Let me assure you that many of us here are as baffled and frustrated
as you appear to be. There are no good arguments against recognized
same-sex unions, but the arguments I have heard propounded are (1)
that they are a threat to the sanctity of traditional marriage (which
is absurd on the face of it) and (2) that they threaten adopted
children (but there is no evidence that children raised by a loving,
stable same-sex couple are in any way disadvantaged, and in any case
the needs of the child come first in any adoption proceedings anyway).

What gets me is that the folks who want constitutional guarantees
against same-sex marriage seem to agree with our President (as do
I) that marriage is a sacred institution (to me and many others,
it is in fact a sacrament). In that case, given our principle of
separation of Church and State, far from having a constitutional
definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, we should
be insisting that the state has no business deciding who can be
married at all, that that determination must be made by Church,
Synagogue, or Mosque. The state should be involved only in the
something we might as well call "civil union", whether heterosexual
or homosexual, which deals with matters like community property,
visitation rights, tax status, estates, and so forth. This ought
to be a completely separate affair from being married in the eyes
of God.

Welcome to the Christian Taliban.

Cheers,
--Joe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org