"Mr. Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has said repeatedly that his views are “evolving,”
Sorry but my feelings will never "evolve" when it comes to this subject. IMO Some things just aren't meant to be modified or tweaked (for lack of better expressions) and this to me goes against nature. Not a hater, just not my style. Then again just my own personal opinion... :rolleyes5:
I'm gonna stop you right there.
I'm not telling anyone who can get married or who can't.
I don't believe the DOMA is telling anyone who CAN or CAN'T get married.
The question is what is considered a "marriage" legally.
Since the concept of marriage is a social invention, the answer to that question is a social one, not an aspect of someone's inherent sexual preference.
Because we live in a diverse culture, there will either be two possible answers:
A: We accept the majority accepted definition of marriage.
B: We abandon a legal concept of marriage and leave it up to the individuals.
If two men came up to me and said, "We're married!", I'd say "Congratulations!". If two men came up to a Devout muslim, or Christian, and said "We're married", they would be met with skepticism because of values they have.
It's bigoted and arrogant to say all people have to accept all definitions of marriage. It ignores the basic teachings of those people's concepts of marriage and imposes your values on them.
SO, I'm for option "B". And being a married man, I can tell you, that I'd give up any modicum of "benefits" it might bring, because they really are that limited and inconsequential, just to end this debate and ridiculousness on both sides of the argument.
I'm not sure how the two bolded statements can be reconciled. And yes, I realize you didn't make the first one. But how can something be both a social construct, and a function of "nature?" The obvious answer for the "marriage is natural only between a man and a woman" argument is the (inherently religious) view that marriage's purpose is procreation. Gays and lesbians can't naturally procreate, thus, not natural. I don't know that the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, though. (The two ideas being that marriage is something natural vs. marriage being a social construct.)
Also don't get you saying "It's bigoted and arrogant to say all people have to accept all definitions of marriage. It ignores the basic teachings of those people's concepts of marriage and imposes your values on them." To me, the reverse is bigoted or arrogant--not accepting people's concepts of marriage as it goes against your basic teachings. I am allowed to be Jewish, though my religious views may be (and actually are) markedly different than those who are Hindu. Hindu people essentially allow
me to be Jewish, though it's obviously not a religious school to which they subscribe. So, if I'm allowed to be Jewish though not everyone agrees with what I believe (pretty much everyone in the continental US, as it happens), then why can't two people get married, even though there are people who disagree with it? Furthermore, does my being Jewish (arguably a larger concept than that of marriage) mean that I impose my beliefs on those who don't agree with me? Most certainly not.
Edited by neverlosethefeeling, 26 February 2011 - 02:31 PM.