A little fuel on the fire

[chipotle]

I've avoided writing on the gay marriage issue because it's either preaching to the choir or at them, depending on the viewpoint -- nearly everyone assumes, explicitly or implicitly, that the validity and logic of their stance is obvious.

This is why this short op-ed,"Joining the Debate but Missing the Point," is worth a read. "For a productive dialogue," author Nathaniel Frank writes, "we should be asking the question this way: is giving gays the right to marry good for society? And to answer that, we must ask what larger social purpose marriage serves."

Comments

[dracosphynx.livejournal.com]

These days I am feeling more and more like a blind man in an art museum.

Being neither married nor gay, and never having been anything other than single, nor the urge to be otherwise, I feel unable to muster much insight into the issues -- like the blind man in an art museum, I can at best understand the gift shop and the museum budget, but that's about it.

The situation is becoming both regretable and annoying in that it is both progressively unavoidable and increasingly divisive, while not becoming any more personably comprehensible.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Unlike you, there are plenty of people who think that blind men's opinions about how to best structure a museum exhibit should count just as much as the museum curator's.

Alas.

[dracosphynx.livejournal.com]

I do not think I said that my opinion should not count, just that I feel increasingly blind about the matter, yet still obligated to come to some conclusion.

[typographer.livejournal.com]

Physician heal thyself.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Great writing - I love it when people describe both sides in order to appear balanced and fair before throwing in little ditties like "[marriag] is a social institution that gays deserve to join."

It almost creates the illusion of a lack of bias.

Almost.

[mordrul.livejournal.com]

Well, I've never been the type to shy away from a conflict, so I'm going to toss my grenade into the mix and watch the chaos that ensues.

I'll admit to not being in favor of the concept, based strictly on personal opinion, and not in any way including the fear that it will somehow degrade the value of marriage (probably not) or that God hates gays (I can't even believe people consider that a valid concept -- especially when they say their god is one of infinite love, justice and mercy), or any of the other arguments that I've read/heard/whatever. However, I also feel that this is a matter for the people to decide, and not the politicians. Marriage is, as stated, a social contract, and the society, as far as I'm concerned, is the individual state. I think the idea that the Feeble Administration wants to propose a Constitutional amendment is beyond absurd, and I'll be the first to vote against it. This is a matter that belongs to the individual societies, and despite all attempts by "both parties" (as if there were any substantive difference between the Republicrats and the Democans) to have us believe otherwise, the USA is exactly that: a union of individual states. Thus, if the people of Massachusetts decide to vote to have state law state that any two consenting adults may be married regardless of respective genders, that is their right and prerogative to do so. And further, all other states must by law accept that.

And no, I don't think the validity and logic of my stance is obvious. It's just my personal opinion, and nothing more.