Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Thirty Ohio TV stations pull misleading ad from anti-union group (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't get it, either. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, MichaelNY, Odysseus

    Not to make this into a policy discussion, but there has to be some dimension of this debate I am not aware of, because I really don't get it, either. It seems like it's a matter of putting gay couples on equal legal footing as far recognition goes, marriage being a part of that. It's not about forcing churches or other organizations from recognizing the marriage, which is what some appear to be worrying about, but rather making government do it. Which seems like a true no-brainer.

    I don't want to get into those who don't appear to take vows as seriously as society expects. That's amusing, but kind of tangential. What I really don't get is the argument that people want the same rights for gays but don't want them to get the term of "marriage." After all, in the end, if everything else is the same,  are we just arguing over language?

    •  Activists on the other side (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, Odysseus

      see this as literally a fight over the future of civilization.  God gave men and women separate and complementary functions and created the institution of marriage as a blueprint for the furthering of society on a macro level and interpersonal relations on a micro level.  In this view, homosexuality is a perversion of God's will, flouting God's plan for men and women to love each other and procreate.

      Unlike so many other 'traditional' values that have been abandoned by a godless, liberal government and polity, the basic framework of male-female-children family unit is still sanctioned and encouraged by the state.  Activists see today's society as a difficult one in which to raise children with the right values, but at least on this one, very important issue, government still encourages the appropriate way of living and recognizes the complementary nature of men and women.  They fear that when government starts giving its imprimatur to gay marriage, it will create a generation of Americans who don't think there are basic differences between men and women.  The children of God-fearing Americans will be taught in schools about gay marriage and brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is okay (and of course, they are right about that).  This erosion of traditional gender roles will confuse impressionable kids about how men and women are supposed to act and strike at the heart of a system that has held up society for millennia.  It is literally about life and death, heaven and hell for future generations that may grow up in a hopelessly godless country and never learn the difference between right and wrong.

      That's the story, at least.  Then there are the people who think gay sex is icky.  As misguided as they may be, I respect the activist set a lot more.

      •  But that's a small minority of people. (0+ / 0-)

        I think Rick Santorum and people like him certainly feel like that, but I'd say a good portion of those opposed to gay marriage aren't like that. They may be against, and perhaps strongly so, but I don't think they believe the future of the world depends on it. It'd be tricky to poll this, but I'd guess that if you could figure out a fair way to do it, you'd find that 35 percent or less of the population feels the way Rick Santorum feels. I'm not worried about them; I'm curious about people like my boss, an Independent who probably leans towards the right (he voted for Bush but also Clinton twice) who says he wants gays to have the same rights as others but think marriage is between a man and woman. Like I said above, unless that isn't true--unless you think there's some legal protection or something that only straight couples should have--we're just arguing over a name. Or rather, we're arguing over something so small as to be meaningless.

    •  I think the ideal result. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, JeffW

      would be civil unions for everyone from a government perspective. Let the religions bicker about their own definitions of "marriage" whatever that means.

      Unfortunately there isn't enough popular support for that, much less revoking the tax exempt status of "churches" that serve mainly as political organizations.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site