There’s an article in The Tyee today about a different stance on the same-sex marriage debate. The author Stan Persky puts out the position that it’s not an argument about marriage, it’s an argument about validating (or not) same-sex sex. Because we all know that the most important part of a marriage is the consummation thereof – and the notion of two same-sex partners doing that, is just ick as far as the Conservatives are concerned.
I’ve thought long and hard about this – wanting to respect both those who hold their religious beliefs strongly, and the obvious rights of any person to marry any other person. I posted my comments on the issue at the bottom of the article, but figured that since (at least I think) it seems like a cohesive and well-written stance, I’d post it here as well, and see what y’all think about it.
————–
The only real solution at this point is to do away with the institution of “marriage” entirely as a legal entity. Civil Unions for all – man/woman/transgendered or any combination thereof – who wish to benefit from the legal contract of such an arragement. And have them performed or endorsed only by a public service employee (such as the JPs who do it now).
Once the church is no longer legally ordained to endorse “civil unions” they’ll no longer have a leg to stand on in their discrimination of those who are born homosexual. This leaves the church entirely outside a position of being able to deny performing a “marriage” for those it chooses to discriminate against.
It’s time to move beyond teaching “tolerance” of those who may be of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. (which is what the Conservative position of Civil Union vs. Marriage is) and move to a society of ACCEPTANCE that everyone is equal, and deserves an equal set of rights that have no basis on anything other than our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
————–
Discuss.
mon point de vue pour ca (homosexuel-man)est qlq chose ki est ainé comme on peut dire aussi aquis ca depent education
Here Here!
Nicely said.
But marriage isn’t just about *rights*. It’s also about obligations. It means being the first one your partner thinks about after an emergency. Ignore the legalities of marriage for a second and focus on the social penalty people get for “cheating” or getting a divorce or even not being a full partner in the marriage. How many celebrations are held when it comes to light that someone secretly had sex with someone who is not their spouse? How many celebrations are there for separations? How many times do people approvingly mention couples where the woman does all the housework while her jobless husband sits and watches TV? Marriage, in other words, is not a contract between two individuals but rather between a couple and the community. In return for legal and quasi-legal rights such as benefits and joint filing on tax returns, they agree to create a home and, sometimes (not always), a family. So then the argument becomes not just of granting legal rights to same-sex couples, but making them obligated to *be* a married couple.
I, too, have long since thought that marriage should be a church-only thing, and if you want the legal rights that a marriage currently gets you, that you should be required to get a civil union in addition.
That way, those who want to do the whole church thing can be married in the eyes of god and whatnot, and those of us who don’t give a damn can just get a civil union and be done with it. But those who get married in a church still need the civil union to get the legal part covered.
But Dev’s right, it’ll never happen.
I agree that this is a great thought in principle, but I also agree with Devon that it’s not practicable. (Geez, I have to disagree with someone…sorry, Mark!) The churches themselves will never give up that power, nor will churchgoers willingly give up the ability to be joined under God (whatever their faith). For many, a secular union is meaningless.
It’s a very difficult issue; perhaps I’m naive, but I’d like to think that things can change. It was not so long ago that homosexual ministers were a fantasy on par with unicorns, but VERY SLOWLY there has has been some movement on that front. I take that as a sign that someday there may be a society with a place for both religion and total acceptance (I loved that comment, by the way).
Maybe it’s just because Im a big cynic, but when I first read that comment, I thought it said “there’s no way the churches will give up their right to sodomize marriages… 🙂
This has been my position for quite some time (since my contemporary moral issues class, at least), but it ain’t gonna happen. There’s no way the churches will give up their right to solemnize marriages.
I think the best we can hope for right now in this country is legalized same-sex marriage.
And boy, am I ever hoping.
i agree with what youre saying, as i believe in a holy marriage, no matter your gender…some of my best friends are homosexual but i treat them no different, and am happy to educate others. i am glad yuo wrote this article, to try and spread a decent, unbiased opinions. kudos to you for that…ps. i am 16 and still in high school, so i hope youll forgive me if ive said anything out of place.