[lbo-talk] Gay marriage

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at aapt.net.au
Wed Nov 12 16:59:40 PST 2008


I never really understood what the problem was with civil unions anyhow. It appears these are the same in law as a religious marriage. So the only distinction is that the religious element of marriage is taken away?

What's the big deal? Forcing religions to accept gay marriage would amount to government interference in religious doctrine wouldn't it?

Personally I don't hold with any kind of marriage, never did like the idea that the sanction of either church or state ought be necessary for a private relationship. But I appreciate that many disagree, are eager for the approval of the state, or their church. They have a point about the state, insofar as the legalities that accrue to married people, but I just don't see what the point is of demanding the church approve something.

Let the churches become more irrelevant. What on earth is the point of demanding they stay relevant to modern relationships? Isn't that a cause long lost? Who cares if a church won't "bless' your relationship because it is contrary to their doctrine? If you want the relationship despite it being contrary to the doctrine of your church, you have already broken with their doctrine. And all a church has is its doctrine, you can't break with that doctrine and insist you are still a member of that church in any meaningful way.

Can you? It seems irrational to me.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas

At 7:29 PM -0500 12/11/08, shag carpet bomb wrote:


>separate but equal....
>
>At 07:26 PM 11/12/2008, ken hanly wrote:
>>Butler says:
>>First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay
>>marriage rights
>>
>> I understand he explicitly supports civil unions but not gay marriage.
>>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list