Good point -

[kyburg]

One of my old-timers, the_alchemist, makes a very valid point this morning:

On the one hand, I don't see any reason why heterosexual relationships should be given special legal privileges over homosexual ones, but on the other, I don't see why sexual relationships should be given special legal privileges over non-sexual ones.

A very valid point, indeed. As it's has been popular to mention when talking about same-sex marriage, it's not about the sex. So what's it all about?

Discuss.

Oh, and if that's not enough for you? theferrett is have a free-for-all over at his place over If you're dressed like that, can't I think you're hot? Of course, does one need to wear a burka if you're NOT on the meat market?

Oh. And this?



Ew.

Comments

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Yes, and it is the STATE that gives all sorts of benefits and perqs in civil marriage.

For the two to be equated, at least in the US, is sorta violating First Amendment bits, isn't it? *Wry* Separation of Church and State after all...

C.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

Basically once you have a license to get married, it's up to YOU where you perform the ceremony as long as it is performed by someone who is licensed to perform the ceremony and you have witnesses.

The civil part is the license.

The religious part is when you do it in a church.

People have their little brains in a twist because they think that they will have to allow same sex marriages in their churches.

The Canadians know what they're doing. In fact, their new law that is in the process of being passed specifically states that they are not forcing any religion to marry anyone they don't want to. That still hasn't changed at all.

Funny thing is, people here in the US can't understand the fact that it is the benefits bestowed on the state is what is important.

You can keep your church ceremonies. it isn't a problem between church and state. It never has been. It's when people equate marriage with RELIGIOUS Marriage, that is, the church ceremony that they seem to think that they're going to be forced to marry same sex couples.

That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

"Funny thing is, people here in the US can't understand the fact that it is the benefits bestowed on the state is what is important."

there are a lot of people who don't want homosexuals to get *those*, either. just look at the disney boycott.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Okay, you misunderstood me. Or maybe I wasn't making myself clear on the matter... (which, considering how I've been lately, is likely)

I am not confused with the civil vs. religious marriage thing. But it seems that the people who are currently running the United States government who ARE confused with the two. Or they figured one IS the other. And fail to understand, as I think I said, that it is the STATE benefits from civil marriage that most people are after. Which is why the whole "civil union" or "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage" thing is also so confusing...

And it seems there are a LOT of people in the US who are confused between the two, or even equate the two. Say... the Religious Right...

*shakes head* I understand the differences and all that... it just annoys me when others don't... which is when I start pointing out the First Amendment, especially the bits about Freedom of Religion.

C.