Profile

unixronin: Galen the technomage, from Babylon 5: Crusade (Default)
Unixronin

December 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

In which [profile] ariyanakylstram makes an excellent point

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 05:46 pm

As [livejournal.com profile] ariyanakylstram pointed out about California Proposition 8,

If marriage is so damned sacred, get rid of divorce, not the right to marry.

Ah, but that would impact those who think they have a god-given right to say who may and may not marry and divorce as they please, wouldn't it?  Whereas banning gay marriage only impacts, you know, them.

Look, folks, it's this simple:  If you disapprove of gays marrying, DON'T MARRY ONE.  If your marriage is in such jeopardy that two people marrying several states away can put it at risk, maybe you should be paying more attention to your own marriage instead of worrying about who else is doing it.

You know, mote, eye, beam, all that jazz?  . . . You did actually read that book, right?

Tags:
Friday, November 7th, 2008 12:53 am (UTC)
I find it telling that you analogize the relationship between government and citizen to that of parent and child.

It would appear that we have radically different views of what government should be.
Friday, November 7th, 2008 05:06 am (UTC)
Perhaps we do have differing views on government. I work from the premise that governments work based on the consent of the governed. I find the actions of the minority pushing a unilateral redefinition of the word, marriage, to be most childish. Using the word "discrimination" to describe the situation is no better. That is the spark for the analogy used.

Please note the volume of responses on the blog for simply objecting to the rhetoric used. I have not advanced any argument for the retention of the status quo. Passions are very high on the subject, from both sides. I honestly do not understand it.
Friday, November 7th, 2008 01:38 pm (UTC)
Then perhaps the problem is that you failed to make it clear it was the rhetoric you were objecting to, not the concept.
Sunday, November 9th, 2008 07:13 am (UTC)
I thought I had. I apologize for not being clear. I lose enough in normal conversation, this text type of exchange is difficult.
Sunday, November 9th, 2008 07:17 am (UTC)
eh. I know all too well how that one works.....