I'm here, I'm here!

[greybeta]

Yeah, Mother's Day Weekend was awesome. I'll have a full report later, but I'm actually in the midst of tagging a lot of photos on Facebook which is more exciting for me right now. However, I did quickly skim my friendslist and saw yet another one of those posts that irked me, and if I had time I'd fully explain why.

Nonetheless, it brings up my two sentence theory. Any position you have, whether it's on religion on politics, should be summed up in two sentences. For this post, I want to ask a question:

What is your position on same-sex marriage?

I am against same-sex marriage for two reasons. The first is that it's imbalancing the balance of nature; the second is that we're just not ready as a society to accept such a gigantic change in gender roles quite yet.

See? Nice, easy, and simple. Could you enlighten D2 on your position for or against same-sex marriage in two sentences as well?

Comments

I opt out

[fub.livejournal.com]

I was going to comment on this, but I decided against it. We don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, and there is little chance that one of us could convince the other.

Re: I opt out

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

The purpose is not to convince each other of one's position, but rather to state one's position in two sentences. If I wanted to state my position, I would have linked one of my previous posts on this topic.

You're stil free to opt out, Mr. Fub, but that's no fun! Be like Suzumiya Haruhi and choose to make the world a more exciting place! ^_^

My two sentences

[fub.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll bite.

I support same-sex marriages. There are no valid arguments against it.

Re: My two sentences

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Very nice job!

[khiron1416.livejournal.com]

Nature(god) will decide nature's(god's) business.
Loving committed couples deserve equal respect under the law.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Fair enough! ^_^

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

I support same-sex and opposite-sex marriage equally.

Legal rights and protections extended to any couple who choose to bind their fortunes together should be extended to every couple who choose to bind their fortunes together.

[gentleeleos.livejournal.com]

You have just stated my exact position...and very articulately, I might add.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I actually think this is the way it will end up, I just don't believe in it.

[eyelashpeekie.livejournal.com]

I am against same-sex marriage because homosexuality is not something created; in fact, He is against it. God created marriage for a man and a woman and as much as non-Christians whine about that, it's the truth and I won't ever be convinced otherwise.

[eyelashpeekie.livejournal.com]

*something God created

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Back to the fundamentals, right?

[thanoslug.livejournal.com]

I am against same sex marriage. Marriage was established by God as an institution between a man and a woman.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

That's a classic line I hear in church every Sunday! ;)

[thanoslug.livejournal.com]

What can I say, I'm both conservative and a bit fundamentalist.

[renough.livejournal.com]

Wow, pulling out the big divisive questions. I'll bite.

I am against same-sex nuptuals because I feel marriage is an institute better fitted under religion than law (originally steeped far more in history of the former than the latter), and although I may be misinformed, I thought the push for same-sex marriage was more for equality in legal rights, not a push to be accepted by a particular religion or their traditions.

[renough.livejournal.com]

Did I mention I tend to string together long sentences? ;)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

THough that was technically one sentence, it felt more like four or five! ;)

[renough.livejournal.com]

Always have to lengthen things for caveats and whatnots... been reading too much of Paul in Romans lately, I s'pose.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

Here we go.

I am in favor of the state allowing any committed couples to marry who want to marry and are legally able to give consent. My reasons break down, ultimately, to one thing: No one has presented an argument against it so compelling that I feel it is worth discriminating against and dehumanizing another human being.

The God argument doesn't do it for me, and not just because I don't believe in God -- in the US, we don't have institutionalized religion. Church and state are supposed to be separate. I'm fully in support of the rights of ANY religious official to refuse to marry anyone on religious grounds (I don't agree with it, but I'll support it), but we've made marriage into a state thing, attaching to the married state many rights and privileges codified in our laws and not available to the unmarried, so now we're going to have to treat it as such. We wander around claiming that in this great democracy of ours, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. So let's make them equal, regardless of who they love.

The nature argument does even less for me. Scientists have uncovered many examples of animals in homosexual relationships. And even if it WAS unnatural, so are antibiotics, nylon, space travel, etc, etc. Heck, it's arguable that the domestication of animals is unnatural.

I'm not even going to address the often expressed idea that if gays can get married, that somehow will lead to the demise of the family or will lessen my own heterosexual relationship. Until someone can provide some kind of logical reason why this must be so, I'm going to continue to regard it as so much irrational screeching.

As for whether society is "ready" for married gay couples? My personal opinion is that it will adapt to the change just fine. We've got gays all over TV right now, both in the news and on their own TV shows. We've got gays in Oscar-winning movies. We've got 'em in music, and in books, and having parades. They're already adopting and raising perfectly healthy children. Sure, it'll be a stretch for some people to handle the change, but I think the rights of homosexuals to be treated as equal human beings should trump the 'rights' of shy violets to be allowed to continue to live in their innocence.

I would be willing, however, to support a compromise: If it's the violation of 'marriage' that rankles so many people, then I'd be willing to support re-writing federal and state law so that the ONLY thing that the law has the power to give couples is a civil union, which would be available to everyone. Civil unions would be the legal aspect of a marriage and the ONLY thing dealt with by the state. Then if a couple wanted to get married, they could go and track down a church to do that for them, and that would be the spiritual aspect of marriage.

[khiron1416.livejournal.com]

Thanks for going through and spelling out many of the things I compressed. I also like your compromise muchly.
People who aren't married just don't get how much tax code, inheritance law, conjugal visits, hospital visitation, financial paperwork, health benefits, insurance benefits, get tied up with marriage.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Those who do not believe God cannot accept arguments that use Him.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with my belief in God or not. It has to do with my belief IN THIS COUNTRY as a place where all religions and lack thereof can co-exist peacefully. We do not live in a Christian state, and the will of the Christian God should not dictate policy in this country. That's what it means to have a separation of church and state.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I disagree, but then I'd need more than two sentences to explain. I'll have to mark this as a blog post for the future...

[loga.livejournal.com]

If you truly love someone, God knows it, and it doesn't matter if you have a piece of paper that says you are married.

[loga.livejournal.com]

Wow, I did it in one.

[khiron1416.livejournal.com]

But if you want to buy a house, get a loan, get a credit card, visit in the hospital, file joint taxes, give/receive death benefits, give/receive health benfits, share custody of a child, adopt, cosign anything, bail your partner out of jail, exempt yourself from testifying against your partner, get engaged, have a wedding, be buried together
(inhale)
THEN IT DOES!!

[loga.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't see how any of those things constitute love.

Marriage is not JUST about love.

[mollyblack.livejournal.com]

When my husband and I decided to get married after living together for many years my friends asked why.

I said every single time: "For the same reason gay people do."

If something happens to me? I want my husband to have the rights inherent in the law. Same with medical insurance. Same with if we choose to adopt. Love does not equal marriage or it would not be tied into the laws therein.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I don't know about love, but I certainly expect that they would constitute a broken and bleeding heart if the person you love is in the hospital, and you're not allowed to visit them.

And love isn't going to keep you warm if the person you love and have lived with for most of your life dies without a will, and because you were not allowed to marry them, you cannot inherit their money.

There are a lot of rights that married people get that you cannot get in this country, otherwise. Denying gays the right to marry the people they love doesn't just demean and dehumanize them by denying them the right to enter into the union that you and I take for granted, it also strips them of the ability to take the rights of the married state.

Would you be willing to give up your right to marry? I wouldn't.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Well, that was more of a compound sentence, but a single sentence nonetheless! ^_^

I can do it in one, I think.

[moocowrich.livejournal.com]

D2 is directly wrong on both counts.

Re: I can do it in one, I think.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

No, this doesn't count. This is a negation of someone else's belief, not a statement of your own beliefs. Unless you want to say something like the following:

"I am for same-sex marriage for two reasons. The first is that it's part of nature; the second is that we're ready as a society to accept such a change in gender roles."

It's a subtle but important difference! ^_^

Re: I can do it in one, I think.

[moocowrich.livejournal.com]

You're right -- I'm not putting forward any sort of argument or really stating any beliefs. This thread and its insistence on sound byte-like arguments offends my sense of the role of argument. Argument, in the philosophical sense, not in the yelling-at-each-other sense, is very important when it comes to hot topics like this one. If I don't get more than two sentences, I'm not going to get very involved.

I could have written a lot more than two sentences originally, as some others seem to have done, but that didn't seem to be in the spirit of what you wanted. And your original opinion is still indefensible :-P

Re: I can do it in one, I think.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Ah, but you see this thread isn't for arguments. Nope, see, I have this theory that people who can distill what they believe on a controversial issue in two sentences cannot be swayed by any arguments, no matter how forceful.

In other words, people confident enough to state their position in two sentences are the people least likely to change their opinions. So, instead of arguing, why don't we just sum up our side of the story for each other and move on with our lives?

That's just D2, though! ^_^

Re: I can do it in one, I think.

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't think it has as much to do with the confidence of their position, as much of their confidence in their abilities as a editor.

I think the trouble of this particular subject is that the reason to oppose and support do so based on different subjects.
I'm certainly open to arguments that disprove or augment my own arguments based upon natural history, and utilitarian sociology. An argument based on a religious definition of natural behaviour or theology based morality however be unconvincing to me as I don't belief in god. Likewise I'll be difficult for me to sway such a person, without either challenging their entire worldview or learning a lot more about bible interpretation then I do now.

I actually think that if somebody can give a clear reason in two sentences, it show the clearity of thought about the subject that gives a good starting point for discussion.

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

I for same-sex marriage for two reasons, It is a simple recognition of a hormonal side-effect of the separation of species into two sexes for a more efficient mixing of genes all those hundreds of millions years ago. And because experience from every country that instituted it taught us that the measurable effects of it on the complete society at large is almost entirely positively, and is received as such after the fact even by a large part of people who first opposed it.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

My my, typing monkeys sure like to type a lot! ^_^

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

And it's only two sentences! I had to cheat a bit and they don't work as a soundbite. But officially? I did it.

Go monkey, go monkey.