Pro Ref 74
Oct. 21st, 2012 10:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nonionayThis post comes from me writing down and solidifying the case I'm laying before my dad to approve Referendum 74 and let Washington become the first place to democratically approve marriage equality. Feel free to draw from as needed. (Does not include accompanying anecdotes and possible dashes of guilt tripping. Yes, I feel guilty about guilt-tripping, but dammit, this is important. I want to go to my friends' weddings and bawl my eyes out and be a part of history changing for the better.)
Semantics
I'm putting this one at the top because here in Washington State, we have "everything but marriage" domestic partnerships, which some people say the LGBT folks should be happy with, even though it doesn't confer federal benefits and does confer second class citizenship.
This is for the people who take it for granted that marriage = man+woman, and that the definition is somehow more important than the institution itself. (Believing that thing=definition of word, as if deciding to call a car a chariot will suddenly turn it into a two wheeled vehicle driven by horses. These, I suspect, are often the same people who take it for granted that sex=penis in vagina, and not penis anywhere else, and so even though they've done oral anal and manual, they're still a virgin. You probably don't want to bring that up in this argument though, and is tangential and will probably piss them off.)
The definition of marriage has changed over and over again in the course of history. In the Old Testament, it was Man + However Many Women He Could Afford. But economies prospered, values changed, and people didn't need an enormous family to do the work. They could hire people; they decided it wasn't worth the social effort; they decided it wasn't ethical. All kinds of things probably. Point is, it changed.
Also, someone else having a different definition of marriage doesn't keep you from maintaining your own definition in your heart, which is where definitions exist.
If the current definition of marriage is a man and a woman coming together to have children, then what about the sterile, childless by choice, and post menopausal couples supposed to be? What about the people who don't fit easily into the categories of Man or Woman, like XXY people, or XY women? (And saying they don't exist isn't a valid argument, and saying they should force themselves into one of the boxes is asking them to deny the truth of their own existence, or, for the religious types, HOW GOD MADE THEM.)
But definitions are important to understanding a thing. My definition of marriage is two (or more) people coming together and promising to live their lives as one: economically, socially and physically. Any property or living beings that come into their lives, be it houses, children or animals, are to be cared for together. Two people creating a life together doesn't have to mean creating a child. A life is a whole sphere of existence. It's daily habits and rituals, the physical spaces we create and the social circles we maintain. Nowhere in this defintion does sex or gender come into play.
Yes, it's important for children to have the influence of both (primary) genders in their lives, but there are plenty of single parents out there who do just fine, and their children can be surrounded by substitute fathers and mothers. My own mom did a great job with me, despite her schizophrenia, but nevertheless, a lot of the female influence in my life came from my grandma or the librarians, and even today I tend to attract the friendship of older, matronly women.
Economics:
Duh. More weddings =more money in the community. I know a wedding photographer who is just drooling in anticipation of legalization.
Ethics:
It's bad to force your beliefs on others. Churches won't be forced to bless gay unions, and people can still teach their kids that gays are bad, even if that is a losing battle in this world where gays are being exposed as perfectly ordinary people.
Theology:
God is everywhere and is capable of working through any relationship. Where there is love (and consent!), there is God. Let us not limit God's capabilities. This argument may help subvert the counterargument of "Being gay is a choice, and God said we shouldn't make that choice, therefore gay=bad," by pointing out that Jesus said more about love than he did about Leviticus. I personally don't think that sexuality is a choice, but I also don't think it should matter if it is.
Semantics
I'm putting this one at the top because here in Washington State, we have "everything but marriage" domestic partnerships, which some people say the LGBT folks should be happy with, even though it doesn't confer federal benefits and does confer second class citizenship.
This is for the people who take it for granted that marriage = man+woman, and that the definition is somehow more important than the institution itself. (Believing that thing=definition of word, as if deciding to call a car a chariot will suddenly turn it into a two wheeled vehicle driven by horses. These, I suspect, are often the same people who take it for granted that sex=penis in vagina, and not penis anywhere else, and so even though they've done oral anal and manual, they're still a virgin. You probably don't want to bring that up in this argument though, and is tangential and will probably piss them off.)
The definition of marriage has changed over and over again in the course of history. In the Old Testament, it was Man + However Many Women He Could Afford. But economies prospered, values changed, and people didn't need an enormous family to do the work. They could hire people; they decided it wasn't worth the social effort; they decided it wasn't ethical. All kinds of things probably. Point is, it changed.
Also, someone else having a different definition of marriage doesn't keep you from maintaining your own definition in your heart, which is where definitions exist.
If the current definition of marriage is a man and a woman coming together to have children, then what about the sterile, childless by choice, and post menopausal couples supposed to be? What about the people who don't fit easily into the categories of Man or Woman, like XXY people, or XY women? (And saying they don't exist isn't a valid argument, and saying they should force themselves into one of the boxes is asking them to deny the truth of their own existence, or, for the religious types, HOW GOD MADE THEM.)
But definitions are important to understanding a thing. My definition of marriage is two (or more) people coming together and promising to live their lives as one: economically, socially and physically. Any property or living beings that come into their lives, be it houses, children or animals, are to be cared for together. Two people creating a life together doesn't have to mean creating a child. A life is a whole sphere of existence. It's daily habits and rituals, the physical spaces we create and the social circles we maintain. Nowhere in this defintion does sex or gender come into play.
Yes, it's important for children to have the influence of both (primary) genders in their lives, but there are plenty of single parents out there who do just fine, and their children can be surrounded by substitute fathers and mothers. My own mom did a great job with me, despite her schizophrenia, but nevertheless, a lot of the female influence in my life came from my grandma or the librarians, and even today I tend to attract the friendship of older, matronly women.
Economics:
Duh. More weddings =more money in the community. I know a wedding photographer who is just drooling in anticipation of legalization.
Ethics:
It's bad to force your beliefs on others. Churches won't be forced to bless gay unions, and people can still teach their kids that gays are bad, even if that is a losing battle in this world where gays are being exposed as perfectly ordinary people.
Theology:
God is everywhere and is capable of working through any relationship. Where there is love (and consent!), there is God. Let us not limit God's capabilities. This argument may help subvert the counterargument of "Being gay is a choice, and God said we shouldn't make that choice, therefore gay=bad," by pointing out that Jesus said more about love than he did about Leviticus. I personally don't think that sexuality is a choice, but I also don't think it should matter if it is.
