I still have not been able to find one opponent of same-sex marriage who can make an effective argument, without resorting to religion, about how the marriage of two men or two women is going to irretrievably damage existing marriages between a man and a woman, or the concept of marriage...
This remains true... but only because you do not define yourself as an opponent of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, you've done a pretty good job of it.
I completely agree with your analysis. This is part of a secularisation process that has been going on for centuries now.
However, I think you miss a key point. The state has always done more than merely "record and acknowledge" relationships. It has actively promoted marriage in a number of ways, through taxation, immigration, social security and other powers of the state. So this is adding to is the list of acceptable relationships. More could be added still, by removing the restrictions on numbers, permissible relationships between them, and ages.
But I cannot accept your contention that "peace, justice and joy" are best served by the deliberate division of society into haves and have-nots.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 03:01 am (UTC)This remains true... but only because you do not define yourself as an opponent of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, you've done a pretty good job of it.
I completely agree with your analysis. This is part of a secularisation process that has been going on for centuries now.
However, I think you miss a key point. The state has always done more than merely "record and acknowledge" relationships. It has actively promoted marriage in a number of ways, through taxation, immigration, social security and other powers of the state. So this is adding to is the list of acceptable relationships. More could be added still, by removing the restrictions on numbers, permissible relationships between them, and ages.
But I cannot accept your contention that "peace, justice and joy" are best served by the deliberate division of society into haves and have-nots.