Gay Marriage "Very Disturbing" - What would YOU say?
I received the following email forward from a friend - a female "of a certain age" who is a fellow blue among reds. She would like some help in formulating a *nice* response, as this is a small community in which she lives full-time, and I only reside part-time.
[quote]"We want to apply for a marriage license." "Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones." "Are you related? I see a resemblance." "We're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married!" "Why? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?" "Yes, tens of thousands. But not siblings. That's incest, for God's sake!" "'Incest?' We are not gay." "Then why do you want to get married?" "Financial benefits. And we do care for each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "We're issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. You are not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim, you are discriminating against us just because we are not gay!" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next." "Hi. We are here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the 'traditional' method of marriage is that it's just for couples -- been that way since the beginning of people.'" "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, for the love of God, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "All right, all right. Next." "Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return." "That does it!? I quit! You people are making a mockery of the sacred bonding of marriage!"
|by Anonymous||reply 4||07/11/2013|
OP here. Sorry about the formatting (LB?) above, but anyone not willing to take a few minutes to plow through it won't want to take the time to write something *nice* in response.
This is what I wrote to her, but either it isn't *nice* enough, or isn't sufficiently strong as an argument.
[quote]First of all, I am appalled that these trite little stories make absolutely NO suggestion that any of these...couples...are in a loving, committed relationship. Since before the fight for equality for same-sex couples began, it has become more and more obvious that many heterosexual couples have an extremely relaxed, cavalier attitude about marriage. I am proud that our Supreme Court has opened the door to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, but I do worry that the laziness of straight couples will be matched, and we will achieve an equivalency in divorce rates.
[quote]A license to marry, just like a license to drive or carry a firearm, is a privilege granted by the state and NOT a birthright.
[quote]I especially love the little exclamations, “for God’s sake!” and “traditional method of marriage,” and “sacred bonding of marriage.” Before 1967, it was illegal for mixed-race couples to marry in the United States.
[quote]The law does not permit consanguinity, nor marriage among multiple partners. There is also no special consideration for mentally ill persons to marry imaginary partners. Nobody is suggesting that it will become legal for a person to marry their horse, or their dog, other than the hateful bigots speaking against same-sex marriage.
[quote]It is very sad to consider that whether they know it or not, whether they choose to admit it or not, these people undoubtedly have homosexual family members. Perhaps their own children or grandchildren are homosexual.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||07/11/2013|
Brother can marry brother under the new laws, as much as a brother could marry his sister under the old.
Other than that, you can't reason with these people. They're being hysterical.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||07/11/2013|
This little screed was written by someone who was horrified that the marriage laws have been changed, and who does not understand what the changes actually *are*.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||07/11/2013|
Why not take an opportunity to respond sensibly? Perhaps some reading your answer will be forced to look at this issue realistically.
The new law allows any 2 consenting people of legal age to marry. Incest laws have not been changed, so it's still illegal to marry a direct relative. Of course in some states a 2nd cousin might be the exception.
Since animals cannot verbally consent, nor sign their name, you can only marry another human being.
The law at this time does not allow plural marriage. It is unlikely that it will in the future. By comparison just because some states have approved medical marijuana for those with serious illnesses, doesn't mean that they'll now legalize heroin, meth, cocaine, etc.
If you really think about it, same sex marriage has existed in some form for some time in the USA. I'm speaking of situations in which one part of a married hetero couple gets a sex change operation. Yes in some states they'd have to get an automatic divorce; how about the others?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||07/11/2013|