Gah!

[seiberwing]

The gay marriage ban in Tennessee passed by 81%. Meaning 81% of the state's voting population are against gay couples having the same rights given to straight couples, a rationale that basically boils down to "the Bible said so, now let's force it on everyone else". Now I remember why I left that damn state and came to Hippytown, NC.

Seriously, I love Tennessee. I just hate the sorts of people there. Lovely folks until you ask them to be tolerant.

EDIT: Dude, Rumsfield resigned. WTF. I guess the day isn't so bad after all.

BRIDE OF EDIT: But we got the House! And the Senate! Booyaka!

Comments

[newagelink.livejournal.com]

Why is your post anonymous? Did you forget to log in?

> The point here is it's YOUR opinion.

That isn't much of a point at all. And, by the way, you don't know my opinion; check it out (http://newagelink.livejournal.com/129688.html). It's pro-equality and pro-marriage freedom.

> It's petty to push your culture onto other people's personal lives.

I wouldn't say 'petty'... more like 'controlling.' I more or less agree with you, though; I thought the amendment was very stupid. I voted yes, though, because that is my personal definition, and I had no reason not to; ultimately I want something to be passed that will make this amendment pointless.

The majority of your post I didn't respond to because, quite frankly, I'm in agreement with it. Any two humans of legal age should be able to marry each other. It's just wrong for our legal system to define for us what marriage is. (And there I point you, again, to my opinion (http://newagelink.livejournal.com/129688.html).)

Marriage should be left outside of the courthouse; Episcopalian marriages can be gay while Baptists and Catholics don't recognize them, and the legal system doesn't care either way, etc.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

I voted yes, though, because that is my personal definition, and I had no reason not to; ultimately I want something to be passed that will make this amendment pointless.

You're being foolish, Dan. Such an amendment will never pass in Tennessee, not in our lifetimes. And hey, maybe there are some gay people out there who want to get married. You've got no right to force them to not get married.

[newagelink.livejournal.com]

> You've got no right to force them to not get married.

I have the right to disagree with it within the Roman Catholic community. Besides, if gays have the right to get married, Mormons have the right to marry more than once. (This again goes to back to my argument that our legal system has no authority to define marriage for anyone.)

[newagelink.livejournal.com]

our legal system has no authority to define marriage for anyone.

I realize this may sound contradictory -- I just said that but I voted for the legislation banning any marriage other than my own -- but again, I voted for it because that is my definition; ultimately, as I said, legislation should be passed that makes the amendment null.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

You're going about it the wrong way. You are advocating forcing a marriage ban in an attempt to take marriage out of the legal system entirely.

Which makes no sense.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

That makes perfect sense, but you're missing my point. Voting against same-sex marriage is NOT the way to get equality in this culture. Idea is good, means are bad.

[newagelink.livejournal.com]

I think it makes sense.

Marriage is a cultural affair, so leave it to the culture.

Keep the legalities of unions between two people, but don't force people to call it "marriage" if that's not their definition of it.

(For example, I believe the definition of 'marriage' is a union between a man and a woman. I don't have the right to force someone else to believe that; neither does our government.)

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

Less with the deletions, you're making me dizzy.

That makes perfect sense, but you're missing my point. Voting against same-sex marriage is NOT the way to get equality in this culture. Idea is good, means are bad.

[newagelink.livejournal.com]

I don't see how there's any other way but to ban the word from the legal system.

I cannot hold my definition to be mine (or yours) if the government orders the definition to be otherwise. That is an infringement of freedom. Likewise, if my religion states marriage to be polygamous in nature, the government is infringing upon my religion to deny me that.

The government, however, has every legal right to only grant the benefits of the union to one (human) couple.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

So then don't vote for something that defines marriage in any way. Gah.

I respect your opinions, Dan, But you aren't justifying them well.

[newagelink.livejournal.com]

I had to vote for my definition, otherwise I risked someone trying to change it for me. I also voted for my definition with the hope of voting for no definition at a later date.

I haven't really tried justifying my opinion (about the definition) here. That's more for IM, anyway. But since you want me to: my definition is as it is because that's what I was raised to believe, and I see no clear reason or need to change it:
1. Marriages for me are in my church.
2. My church doesn't agree with marrying gays.
3. Therefore, gays don't get married in my church.
4. Gays should seek marriage in a different church.
5. Gays should receive the legal benefits of a union with each other just like ungays* do.

There is no problem.

* I said "ungays" because "gay" is a stupid word for a homosexual. It implies heterosexuals are not merry.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

*is extremely amused by the term "nongays"* How did we get homosexual out of gay, anyway? Must research.

You were not voting for your definition, you were voting for marriage as the law currently describes it...good god. I'm ending this discussion right here, we are obviously not getting anywhere.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the US isn't made of of just Roman Catholics. And Mormons in general don't do polygamy anymore.