(no subject)

[tugrik]

Right now I have many friends, co-workers and online folks in various states of protest about the Defense of Marriage week. The arguments tend to center around morality imposed by one or more religions vs. human rights and equal treatment. Reading through the many opinions on these issues (including well written ones like Reality_Fox posted) has been educational. There are many points I could make, most of them already said before by people far better written/spoken than I.

Instead, I will simply say: I have faith. In this case, faith in societal change and progress.

As a society we've created a lot of change in the last few hundred years. Painful, sure. Time-consuming, martyr-creating and life-destroying for the activists who heralded the changes, definitely. What matters is that in the end we changed. Inter-racial marriage, women's voting rights, freedom of religion... the list goes on. Even if only in limited ways in limited parts of the world, they have happened and will continue to happen on a broader scale.

I see how many people of my generation are responding to these issues. I see how they are teaching their kids to be more tolerant and more willing to question doctrine, be it of religious or government origin. The previous generations fight, squabble and lash out to maintain their version of How Things Are. Their only hope is convincing the children Their Ways, and as always, that's not happening as much as they wished it was. Just like every generation before them, they'll eventually lose. That's just the way of things, even if it takes a long time.

So take heart, those of you fighting for your rights and the desire to be accepted. You will be allowed to live and love as you wish. It will happen, and you are helping it along. Even if it doesn't happen for you in your lifetime... it'll happen for those that come after.

Just keep this in mind: Like many things in life, this will go full-circle. Someday we'll be the Old Guard. The generation below us is going to want and create change that we don't agree with. We will find it morally bankrupt and Just Wrong. Nonetheless, with time, they will get it. Things just work that way.

I think I'm going to be okay with that. That's what having faith is all about.

Comments

[stryck.livejournal.com]

The issue I struggle with is the idealist reality where truth is unchanging, and the normally accepted relatavist reality where it isn't.

Just because lots of people do something or support something doesn't make it right. I posted here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/stryck/79944.html#cutid1) in my struggles to realize what's going on and why it matters.

Back in the days before the slaves were freed, lots of people said they should be freed and were dismissed. Back in the days when opium was considered over-the-counter medicine, some people said it shouldn't be so widely used and were dismissed. Popular opinion isn't always right. The trick is to find what -is- right and then stand one's ground.

Right and wrong.

[cjthomas.livejournal.com]

Back in the days before the slaves were freed, lots of people said they should be freed and were dismissed. Back in the days when opium was
considered over-the-counter medicine, some people said it shouldn't be so widely used and were dismissed. Popular opinion isn't always right. The
trick is to find what -is- right and then stand one's ground.

This assumes that an absolute right and wrong exist, at least if you're trying to apply it to society, as opposed to just setting your own moral compass.

In any given culture, you'll find a broad outline that most people agree to (which varies from culture to culture), but you'll be hard-pressed to get them to agree on the details or where the boundaries lie. Between cultures, it's even worse. If an absolute right and wrong exist, people certainly haven't agreed on what it is yet.

Our current system, in north america at least, tries to maximize the ability of people to live by their own moral codes. This involves mostly implementing laws that prevent them from stepping on each others' toes. That which is forbidden is generally that which actively harms other people, or that which tries to tear down the system that's attempting to uphold these freedoms. Gay marriage (in the legal sense) doesn't harm you and it doesn't harm me, so people are (IMO rightly) questioning why it's forbidden.

Re: Right and wrong.

[stryck.livejournal.com]

Pardon me, but I'm an idealist. In other words, I believe in absolutes pointed to by the imperfect standards of our world.

The redefinition of marriage is of GREAT concern to me, as I am married. You didn't understand that statement before, so I don't have a lot of hope you will now, but it isn't just words. Words reflect (and sometimes create) reality. To change the definition of a word is to change its perception in the eyes of those who use it, which changes its underlying meaning for an entire culture. Marriage would cease to mean what it has and mean something else.

Re: Right and wrong.

[cjthomas.livejournal.com]

The redefinition of marriage is of GREAT concern to me, as I am married. You didn't understand that statement before, so I don't have a lot of hope you will now, but it isn't just words. Words reflect (and sometimes create) reality.

This is the crux of the matter: You feel threatened by the prospect of gay unions being called "marriage".

How?

How can your own relationship be in any way compromised by what other people do, or what other people call their relationships?

If you and Brian were the only humans on Earth, with no society to assign labels to anything, would your relationship be any less special or meaningful? No? Then how does society's labelling have any effect on it?

"Threat" is the potential for harm. How can any force on earth harm _your_ relationship? If it can't, why is the prospect of "marriage" being redefined threatening to you?

[narile.livejournal.com]

My stance is that there are two marragies, and one of them is misnamed. There is the true marrage, which is a status of a life condition observered in a religious environment. This is a religious state, and as such it should not be recognized by the government in any particular manner. It is a matter between different churches as to weither they recognize it. The second marrage is the misnamed one, this is the one that is a contract between two parties, consenting adults, this is what should be recognized by the government, it also should not be called marrage. It is a domestic partnership created to provide mutual support and for children. It, unlike many religious marrages, can be dissolved. I have no problem with gays having domestic partnerships, and having them recognized by the government. I do have a problem with trying to force others to change a religious belief.

[cjthomas.livejournal.com]

Why does religion get first dibs on the word "marriage"?

[narile.livejournal.com]

Several thousand years of first use precident, from when the religion *was* the government.

[cjthomas.livejournal.com]

Several thousand years of first use precident, from when the religion *was* the government.

And which religion are we deciding has dibs, again?

Divorce was brought up as an example of why civil marriage is "cheaper" than church marriage, but even within Christian faiths, the protestants, anglicans, and orthodox churches allow divorce, as far as a quick google search shows.

These views, and the churches that hold them, are not identical to the views and churches of even past centuries, much less millenia. How can they then claim thousands of years of precedent for them?