A quick poll.

[plonq]

Same-sex marriage and the federal sponsorship scandal have been dominating the news up here recently.  Since nobody outside of the media really cares about the sponsorship scandal, I figured I'd broach the other subject.

What are your thoughts on same-sex marriage?  I've set up a (semi-anonymous) poll on the matter.  If enough people fill it out then I will post the numbers up here in a day or two.

[Poll #435934]

Feel free to discuss the matter in the comments section.  I'm always up for a good argument chat.

Comments

[dronon.livejournal.com]

I think that since the more stubborn elements of various religious groups will never be placated on the concept of marriage, the best way to go about it is to remove the concept of marriage from government altogether. Have the government bestow civic unions to people of either gender, with all the legal benefits, rights and protections that go along. If two people want to get married (a non-bureaucratic ceremony), they can go to a church or whatnot; and if one particular church refuses to marry them, there'll be another that will. On the other hand this wouldn't exactly encourage the more intolerant religious branches to "get with today".

Taking the easy way out,

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

...and saying, "Yah! Wot e' said!"

I pretty much agree with everything dronon said, and it's all summed up very nicely in that short paragraph. If I can't have marriage, then grant me and my partner everything that comes with marriage otherwise. I have no problem with dumping the Dogma associated with the term marriage.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I checked myself down as "indifferent" because it really doesn't affect me one way or the other, but neither am I against it.

I had an interesting discussion with a (recovering) Catholic friend a few days ago, and we took opposite sides on the debate. I was arguing the case for same-sex marriage, and he was quite firmly opposed to it.

His biggest concern was that it was tampering with long-established tradition. On the other hand, he was in favour of calling it a "civil union" and granting all of the same rights and benefits. Of course I took him to task on that and said, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then why shouldn't we just call it a duck?"

To paraphrase his reply a bit he said, "My objections to calling it a marriage are entirely emotional. I can't give you any good logical or rational reasons to defend my views, so you're just going to have to accept my answer as being that I just don't like it."

I don't share some of his views, but I appreciate his intellectual honesty.

[giza.livejournal.com]

> His biggest concern was that it was tampering with long-established
> tradition.

I never really bought that sort of answer. It kinda smacks of, "Well, we didn't think of this idea, so it sucks!"

Traditions do change over time. I do believe that once it was "tradition" for women to be treated as Second Class Citizens. But that sure changed.

> To paraphrase his reply a bit he said, "My objections to calling it a
> marriage are entirely emotional. I can't give you any good logical or
> rational reasons to defend my views, so you're just going to have to
> accept my answer as being that I just don't like it."

Okay, that puts him on my Cool List for being up front about it. I wish more people who were opposed to same sex marriage would just say that.

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

Plus, if you take 'tradition' far enough you'll hit marriage as a concept before Christianity. They borrowed it and handled it for 2000 years; we'd like it back now, you've abused the privilige, kthxbye. ;)

[atara.livejournal.com]

When I was in Germany, one of my host sisters got married. I discovered that in Germany, the church is 100% out of the legal end of getting married. A priest/minister/rabbi/whatever has no legal power to grant two people "married" status. So, first you get a civil service in which you're married in the eyes of the state. Then (usually the next weekend) you get your church wedding with the flowers and cake and whatnot.

That's really the best setup. Only the government should have the power to legally declare two people united, since they are the ones who confer the legal rights of such a union. Then let whatever deity you prefer bless your union.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

There is definitely merit in that. As the entity that controls the rights and privileges that go along with it, the government should have the final say in what constitutes a legal marriage.