4 Responses to “Obscured in the Elton John Kerfuffle”

1. BumperStickerist said:
   

   July 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

   I confirmed with my wife that gays being allowed to marry wouldn’t make ours any more-or-less of a marriage.

   And, from a societal good standpoint I, for one, would swap getting rid of “no fault divorce” and having gay marriage in a heartbeat.

2. Texan99 said:
   

   July 27th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

   I’m 100% with BumperSticker.

3. Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian said:
   

   July 27th, 2010 at 10:09 pm

   There’s no such thing as being able to construct civil unions properly. This is the real reason it is being advocated. Elton John has just been suckered into buying it as being more respectful, since he seems to be an honorable man. However, the Mormon Church, which is the primary driver in the movement against same-sex marriage equality, has at least THREE definitions of marriage — and they approve of two of them: temple marriage between a male and female Mormon, which requires both to knuckle under completely to the will of their church elders in order to qualify for the temple “recommend”; and plural marriage, aka polygamy, which I believe they are eager to re-institute. The third kind of marriage is any marriage performed outside of a Mormon temple — Mormons define it as for this lifetime only and spiritually empty.

   Since the Mormons have taken the liberty of defining marriage so that every other religion’s marriage is inferior, I say they have set a precedent that they are fine with re-defining marriage and therefore there is no reason to define marriage in any way that excludes same-sex couples.

4. RealEqualityForSingles said:
   

   July 29th, 2010 at 12:05 am

   I’ve said it a million times and I’ll say it a million more: I am against gay marriage because it grants special rights. Not the “Gay” part, but the “marriage” part! I’m against straight marriage also. To be more specific, I am not specifically against marriage, gay or straight, existing, but rather I am against government recognition, monitoring, regulation, registration or other legal recognition of marriage, as its sole purpose is to allow the marrieds to discriminate against the singles with all their special benefits and higher pay and special legal priviledges. Gay people don’t want to stop discrimination by allowing government recognition of gay marriage, they just want to move out of the discriminated-against class (gays and single straights) and into the class that oppresses (marrieds) so that the gay marrieds and straight marrieds can, together, continue to oppress both the straight and gay singles. If not for government recognition of marriage, which allows marrieds to get special benefits and higher pay at work as well as many other special legal rights and protections, there would be no conflict over allowing gay marriages. Anyone who wished to call themselves married could do so, and anyone who didn’t wish to recognize that marriage would also be free to do so - there would be freedom for people of all beliefs, from gays to Mormon polygamists, even for Singles. Gay people who want to legally marry don’t want “equality” (which would allow me to get compensated the same as a married person working for my company, whereas I am currently compensated $5k less than if I were married) they just want to join the straight-marrieds on the more profitable side of the inequality barrier. (And that objection includes “civil unions” too!)

Leave a Reply

Cleaker 2.1 Theme created by Adam Walker Cleaveland with Widget support added by ckwebb.com content rss | comments rss