| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"blewyn" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2003 08:40:03 AM |
| Object: |
Re Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . . |
(FatherFAK) wrote in message news:<97ff61c7.0311220340.3410c34b@posting.google.com>...
I have to agree. I have a question though. Has anyone ever explained
how allowing gay marriage could possibly be a threat to traditional
hetero marriage? I don't understand how it could.
I think there are three probable explanations for this :
1. There is a prejeudice that gay people will be less likely to put
their children's wellbeing before their own wants than hetero couples,
and that they will not place the same importance on succeeding as
couples and families that we heteros do. If, twenty years down the
lines, gays turn out to put comparatively less effort into their
marriages, then the fear is that their behaviour, being so culturally
influential, will encourage the same in hetero families, with obvious
implications for the quality of child-rearing. Personally I don't
think this fear and prejeudice is sufficient reason to deny a couple
of any sex the same legal partnership rights as another. However,
there is a part of me that thinks we should not alter the cultural
significance of marriage as the major basis for family groups, and
that same sex couples should have a type of union all their own.
2. Some people regard their married status as a symbol of social
superiority, and look down on gays. To them, allowing gay marriage
would devalue their own status in society.
3. Others oppose it on religious grounds.
Obviously 2 and 3 are only valid as personal codes of behaviour for
those who hold those views, and in my opinion they should butt out of
the lives of others, but what can you do.
Blewyn
.
|
|
| User: "FatherFAK" |
|
| Title: Re: Re Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . . |
23 Nov 2003 06:38:56 AM |
|
|
(blewyn) wrote in message news:<1f63b835.0311220640.3a742dd5@posting.google.com>...
fatherfak@yahoo.com (FatherFAK) wrote in message news:<97ff61c7.0311220340.3410c34b@posting.google.com>...
I have to agree. I have a question though. Has anyone ever explained
how allowing gay marriage could possibly be a threat to traditional
hetero marriage? I don't understand how it could.
I think there are three probable explanations for this :
1. There is a prejeudice that gay people will be less likely to put
their children's wellbeing before their own wants than hetero couples,
and that they will not place the same importance on succeeding as
couples and families that we heteros do. If, twenty years down the
lines, gays turn out to put comparatively less effort into their
marriages, then the fear is that their behaviour, being so culturally
influential, will encourage the same in hetero families, with obvious
implications for the quality of child-rearing. Personally I don't
think this fear and prejeudice is sufficient reason to deny a couple
of any sex the same legal partnership rights as another. However,
there is a part of me that thinks we should not alter the cultural
significance of marriage as the major basis for family groups, and
that same sex couples should have a type of union all their own.
2. Some people regard their married status as a symbol of social
superiority, and look down on gays. To them, allowing gay marriage
would devalue their own status in society.
3. Others oppose it on religious grounds.
Obviously 2 and 3 are only valid as personal codes of behaviour for
those who hold those views, and in my opinion they should butt out of
the lives of others, but what can you do.
Blewyn
I am also in favor of recognizing 'civil-unions'. I kinda see marriage
as more of a religious institution, so I suppose the term would not be
appropriate for same-sex unions. Well, in most religious sects, that
is. As for gays placing less value on their own families, I see no
reason to believe that to be the case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Re Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . . |
23 Nov 2003 04:31:28 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2003 04:38:56 -0800, (FatherFAK) posted
in alt.atheism:
I am also in favor of recognizing 'civil-unions'. I kinda see marriage
as more of a religious institution
The law doesn't. One has no rights vis-a-vis a partner one isn't
legally married to. One can't deduct one's non-married partner on
one's taxes. One has no legal rights wrt one's non-married partner's
children unless one adopts them. There are many other areas in which
the law gives marriage a special legal status.
If 'civil unions' were accorded all the legal rights of marriage the
religious bigots would still complain.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Re Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . . |
23 Nov 2003 04:28:38 PM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2003 06:40:03 -0800, (blewyn) posted
in alt.atheism:
1. There is a prejeudice that gay people will be less likely to put
their children's wellbeing before their own wants than hetero couples,
and that they will not place the same importance on succeeding as
couples and families that we heteros do.
The actual evidence says exactly the opposite.
If, twenty years down the
lines, gays turn out to put comparatively less effort into their
marriages, then the fear is that their behaviour, being so culturally
influential, will encourage the same in hetero families, with obvious
implications for the quality of child-rearing. Personally I don't
think this fear and prejeudice is sufficient reason to deny a couple
of any sex the same legal partnership rights as another. However,
there is a part of me that thinks we should not alter the cultural
significance of marriage as the major basis for family groups, and
that same sex couples should have a type of union all their own.
Exactly the same arguments were made for anti-miscegenation laws.
2. Some people regard their married status as a symbol of social
superiority, and look down on gays. To them, allowing gay marriage
would devalue their own status in society.
Some white people look on blacks. Giving blacks the same legal rights
as whites would devalue the status of whites in society.
Would any government official care to back THAT view?
3. Others oppose it on religious grounds.
That's a Constitutional violation, unless the government ignores
marriage entirely.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "blewyn" |
|
| Title: Re: Re Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . . |
23 Nov 2003 11:45:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<4uc2svkc6fopfnt1l3n0keldsfp646v358@Pern.rk>...
On 22 Nov 2003 06:40:03 -0800, (blewyn) posted
in alt.atheism:
1. There is a prejeudice that gay people will be less likely to put
their children's wellbeing before their own wants than hetero couples,
and that they will not place the same importance on succeeding as
couples and families that we heteros do.
The actual evidence says exactly the opposite.
Like I said, it's just a prejeudice - and not one I hold - but those
who do would argue that those gays who become parents in this climate
of general hostility towards the idea are likely to be very committed
individuals. The anti-gay argument is that the current evidence
reflects the behaviour of the best parents among gays, and that the
standard of parenting will drop as gay parenting becomes widely
accepted and normal. Again I stress I don't agree with this
prejeudice.
If, twenty years down the
lines, gays turn out to put comparatively less effort into their
marriages, then the fear is that their behaviour, being so culturally
influential, will encourage the same in hetero families, with obvious
implications for the quality of child-rearing. Personally I don't
think this fear and prejeudice is sufficient reason to deny a couple
of any sex the same legal partnership rights as another. However,
there is a part of me that thinks we should not alter the cultural
significance of marriage as the major basis for family groups, and
that same sex couples should have a type of union all their own.
Exactly the same arguments were made for anti-miscegenation laws.
There's always someone who wants to preserve a part of their culture
rather than change it. In my view, the task ahead is to separate the
religious significance of marriage between a man and woman from the
civil sigificance of marriage between any couple.
2. Some people regard their married status as a symbol of social
superiority, and look down on gays. To them, allowing gay marriage
would devalue their own status in society.
Some white people look on blacks. Giving blacks the same legal rights
as whites would devalue the status of whites in society.
Would any government official care to back THAT view?
Of course not, but they used to, and not very long ago either.
Blewyn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . .
Another missive from our friend, Jerry Falwell
What's our friend, Jerry Falwell, got to say today? Wed June 16, 2004
21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell
7/14/04 What has our good friend, Jerry Falwell, have to say to us today?
July 16, 2004 Our friend Jerry Falwell has something to say . . .
Our good friend, Jerry Falwell, has important words . . . June 17, 2004
What's our good friend, Jerry Falwell, got to say today? June 25, 2004
| July 1 2004 What's our good friend Jerry Falwell got to say to us today?
Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . .
OT: Jump on our bandwagon
OT: Mole in Our Midst
OUR ATHEISM BROUGHT LOVE
THIS IS A LIBERAL'S BRAIN ON DRUGS ==> we don't want our loved ones who died in 9/11 used as an excuse to start war
OT: Only Europe can safeguard our social democratic future
|
|
|
