Philip Newton&#39;s journal

Thank you.

From:

entirelysonja.livejournal.com

I have a few questions about your views, which I hope you will answer.

Do you differentiate between the secular and religious aspects of marriage?

Do you object to the state granting same-sex couples the same kinds of legal benefits that are granted to opposite-sex couples?

Would you object if the state no longer performed marriage ceremonies for any couples, instead granting "civil unions" or some such, and leaving the concept of marriage entirely for the churches?

(That last is my preferred solution to this entire dilemma -- I believe that "marriage" is most appropriately viewed as a religious concept, while I also believe that the state has an interest in recognizing family units for various reasons.)

From:

Do you differentiate between the secular and religious aspects of marriage?

I think I haven't thought about this in that much detail. I'd say that for me, marriage, family, and children are all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular.

Do you object to the state granting same-sex couples the same kinds of legal benefits that are granted to opposite-sex couples?

I'm not sure. (What kind of legal benefits are we talking about, for one?)

Let's get back to that in a minute.

Would you object if the state no longer performed marriage ceremonies for any couples, instead granting "civil unions" or some such, and leaving the concept of marriage entirely for the churches?

I haven't given this much thought again, but I think I wouldn't object much if the concept of marriage were confined to the churches. But I'm not sure what the point of a "civil union" would be, then?

I believe that "marriage" is most appropriately viewed as a religious concept

*nods*

I also believe that the state has an interest in recognizing family units for various reasons.

See, I think this is what it hinges on.

Why does the state have to recognise family units? What privileges do married couples have that non-married couples don't?

In Germany, you get a tax reduction if you're married. But other than that?

Unless it's things to do with children (e.g. I think a child born to unmarried parents is legally connected to the mother but not to the father, and unmarried couples can't adopt). But then that falls into the realm of "family" again, which to me is religious.

Or naming: partners often change their surname after marriage, and children born into a marriage get the surname of one of their parents, whereas children of unmarried parents take the surname of their mother AFAIK even if the parents consider themselves married but they aren't before the law.

I wouldn't like same-sex couples to be able to adopt children, and they can't have any of their own in the first place. (I would also want opposite-sex couples be married if they're going to be a couple and spend their life together, whether they have children or not.)

So I'm also not quite sure why the state wants to promote marriage, unless it's religious elements. Or perhaps something like promoting having children so that children are born so that the population doesn't die out (which wouldn't work for same-sex couples)—since I guess people usually prefer to be committed to one another before they'll go and have a child together. Or perhaps to promote families as a unit of a strong society?

What's in it for the state?

In summary: I think it's more a religious thing than a secular one and am not quite clear about the role of the state in all this.

From:

rho

Disclaimer: I am not an expert. I am not anything that even vaguely approaches being an expert. I may be wrong on some bits, and all of it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I split a marriage up into three main purposes. Firstly, there's the religious aspect, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Then there's the personal element. When you get married, you're making a personal commitment to your partner. You're also celebrating your love. This has nothing to do with the state, but it's still a reason why people wish to get married even if they aren't religious.

Then there's the legal element. You mentioned tax breaks. These are Important. Consider something like inheritance tax. AIUI, in England at least, spouses can inherit from their dead partner without being taxed on it. Unmarried couples cannot, and by extension, no gay couples are afforded this right. This is a clear case of the rights given to two classes of people being different, and is a point of contention.

Whether or not tax breaks should be given to all couples, or taken away from them all is a somewhat different issue, but I strongly believe that the rights granted should be equal. And I rather suspect that the government would have riots on its hands if it tried to take them away, as it would cause things like little old ladies being forced to move out of their house of 40 years because they couldn't afford the tax on it.

Then you've got things like conflict resolution. Regardless of your personal moral feelings about it, divorce law is well established these days, with the aim being, always, to treat both parties fairly and equitibly. In the case of gay couples, this process is much less clear cut. Sure, there may not be children involved (barring the case of gay adoption, where I disagree with you but respect your opinion; I'd happily discuss that too, but I don't think here is the place), but there can be highly emotive disgareements over who owns what. A family pet for instance. Or a home. Should gay couples be denied the benefit of impartial legal adjudication on the same footing as straight couples here?

The question, in theses cases, isn't necessarily what's in it for the state, but what's in it for the people of the state. One of the duties of a state is to provide for its people, and I strongly believe that that means to provide for all its people on an equal footing.

As for what's in it for the state, I can only speculate. I'm trying to imagine a situation where marriage is rare though. There would be a lot more people living independently. More people would live alone, which would, in turn, mess up the economy in quite a big way. I would also imagine that people are much less likely to claim various government benefits (eg, unemployment) if they have a partner who is making an income and supporting them. In a way, it's sort of like a two-person co-operative, with a partner offering the first safety net when things go bad. This, in turn, prevents people from going to the nationwide co-operative that is the state quite so often. Or, in short, I imagine that marriage introduces stability and is good for the economy. If that's the case, then it owuld apply equally well to homosexuals as heterosexual. Of course, I may be missing some good reasons that do differentiate between the two, but I'm doubtful.

So, to summarise: there are currently reasons for marriage which are unrelated to its religious significance. My personal prefered solution is to split it up into multiple separate parts. To use an analogy which I've just thought of, it's like the "friends" concept on LiveJournal. It's overloaded. Different people talk about it, mainly refering to different bits, and if it were split up (for instance, if the religious and legal elements became totally separated) then I think things would work better.

I hope that answers some of your questions at least.

From:

I hope that answers some of your questions at least.

Some, yes; thanks. It was interesting reading and food for thought.

I believe I tend to agree with what you set out.

From:

sparkofcreation.livejournal.com

Okay. Here in New Jersey:
1. Children can have any last name at all--my best friend's son has neither her last name nor his father's (yes, she and the father are married) because she's never changed her last name, but Immigration has messed up her husband's papers and so his legal last name is not his real last name. They're in the process of getting his last name legally changed, at which point she'll change her last name to match his, but their son already has his father's real (but so far, not legal) last name. Anyway, so in New Jersey a child can have any last name. In some states, children of married couples must take the father's last name, but children of unmarried women can take either the mother's name or the father's name. I've never heard of children born to unwed mothers having to take the mother's last name.
2. Both unmarried couples and gay couples can adopt children, and if one woman in a lesbian relationship has a child, the other partner can adopt the child so both are legally the child's mother (assuming there is no father).

Legal rights of married couples include: lower rates on automobile, health and life insurance; right to make medical and legal decisions for the other person if s/he is incapacitated; right to see the other person in the hospital [intensive-care units normally admit only immediate family]; lower interest rates on mortgages; being the automatic heir of the other person's estate. (In the US, married couples pay higher taxes than single people, not lower ... it's a bit more complicated than that, since married people whose spouses don't work pay lower taxes, but dual-income married people pay higher.)

The state's interest in promoting marriage is simple: married people, on the whole, are healthier, happier and more stable than unmarried people. (Also, they pay higher taxes, as I said.) Also, as you said, promoting the growth of the population.

I'm curious why you think marriage, family and children (on the whole) are "all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular," especially since you went on to mention people wanting to be committed to each other before they have children, which is dead on. Areligious people want to have children too, and they want to bring them up in a committed relationship. Also, you seem to assume (in that sentence) that ethics cannot be secular. Why?

Not trying to start a fight here, and I hope you know that—I'm really curious as to why you hold the opinions that you do.

From:

The state's interest in promoting marriage is simple: married people, on the whole, are healthier, happier and more stable than unmarried people.

Is this also true for same-sex married people compared to same-sex non-married couples or homosexual singles?

Also, as you said, promoting the growth of the population.

This, it seems to me, would indicate that it's not in the state's interest to promote same-sex marriages. (Or better: one factor that affects whether same-sex and opposite-sex marriages should be equally promoted by the state or not.)

I'm curious why you think marriage, family and children (on the whole) are "all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular," especially since you went on to mention people wanting to be committed to each other before they have children, which is dead on. Areligious people want to have children too, and they want to bring them up in a committed relationship. Also, you seem to assume (in that sentence) that ethics cannot be secular. Why?

Ah. Apparently, I chose the wrong word; I think I wanted to express that the ideas of marriage, family, and children (as an "institution"), or perhaps better: the relationships implied by them, are something not primarily connected with the state but rather something personal, better governed or controlled by people's ethical and/or religious convictions rather than laws.

So, yes: both religious and areligious people want to have children and typically want to bring them up in a committed relationship, but that's something arising from their feelings and value system, so I'd put it under the "religious" and/or "personal" aspects of

rho's three, rather than the "legal" aspect.

From:

entirelysonja.livejournal.com

Well, it's not actually true that same sex couples can't have children. It's relatively easy for women to have children without being in a relationship with a man -- in this country, lesbian couples commonly either find a friend who's willing to donate sperm to them, or they buy sperm from a sperm bank. Depending on the sperm bank and the situation, the woman might either pay her doctor to inseminate her, or have her partner do it at home.

And either male or female couples may well have children from previous opposite-sex relationships -- this is quite common among couples comprised of 2 women.

Adoption is also an option. In this country, same-sex couples and single parents can adopt children. It may not be as easy for them as it is for opposite-sex couples, but it is possible and it happens frequently.

Many couples are concerned about what will happen to their children if the legal parent should die, which is why second-parent adoption is such an important issue in this country. I know a woman for whom this was a serious problem; her partner was the birth mother of their child, and developed cancer shortly after the child was born. Luckily, she was able to obtain adoptive parent status, allowing her to continue to raise the child after her partner died. I would suggest that the state has an interest in preventing children from entering into the child welfare system unnecessarily.

Health insurance benefits are also a significant concern for many couples here. Opposite-sex couples who marry are able to choose between the health insurance benefits offered by each of their employers, assuming that both are employed. These benefits differ significantly from employer to employer, and there are many jobs that offer no insurance at all. Obtaining health insurance on one's own is often prohibitively expensive. Same sex couples do not have this option unless their employers offer "domestic partnership benefits". I believe that the state has an interest here, in that it is obviously beneficial for more people to have health insurance coverage.

These are two major issues; there are many others where I would suggest that the major problem is lack of equal treatment, rather than a compelling state interest.

For example, it is more difficult for a same-sex couple to own purchase and own property (such as a house) together. Inheritance rights are more complicated. Obviously the taxation situation is different. Decision-making (and even access) in situations where one partner is incapacitated and under medical care can be problematic.

I think it's more a religious thing than a secular one and am not quite clear about the role of the state in all this.

In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?

From:

Well, it's not actually true that same sex couples can't have children.

I meant "can't have children together from one another". Apologies for the confusion.

(As an exaggeration: if all people lived together in same-sex couples and were faithful to their partner, nobody would have any children. That's what I meant with "same-sex couples can't have children"; I realise that same-sex couples can acquire children from other sources than through one partner impregnating the other.)

In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?

I'll have to think about it, especially in the light of what I've read this evening from some of you.

As I said, I haven't given that much thought to this separation yet, so I'm not sure what would work out how in the long run.

From:

sparkofcreation.livejournal.com

There was also a very famous case here where a lesbian couple had a child together: one was the egg donor, and the other carried the baby (they used sperm from a donor IIRC). They won the right to both be listed as "mother" on the child's birth certificate.

if all people lived together in same-sex couples and were faithful to their partner, nobody would have any children.

I'm just itching to yell "Sperm banks! Surrogate mothers!" but I know that's not what you mean. Actually, I do see your point about same-sex couples not having children with each other, and I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that people who are anti-same-sex-marriage are not also campaigning to outlaw marriage between people who are biologically incapable of having children.

From:

In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?

Tentatively: yes.

From:

Just in response to your comment on naming...

My parents were never married, but I have my fathers last name (though it obviously wasn't my mothers). At least in the States, either is exceptable

From:

nycheetah.livejournal.com

u r awesome

From:

damned-colonial.livejournal.com

Also: http://www.livejournal.com/users/insomnia/382539.html

From:

Interesting; thanks.

From:

marikochan.livejournal.com

I of course agree that you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise -- just to explain why I'm so passionate on the issue. =)

I suppose I don't support same-sex marriage per se; it's an easy thing to say, but really, I support equality of rights for same-sex and different-sex couples. Marriage as a religious concept doesn't bother me at all, with the caveat that if it is, I won't get married: I'm not religious. In the US, however, marriage isn't simply a religious concept; it's recognized by the state. Tax benefits are among the things granted to married couples by the state; others are visitation rights in the hospital (a partner to whom one is not married, regardless of the partner's sex, is not considered a member of one's family and not allowed to visit in the hospital, regardless of one's wishes or the seriousness of the injury) and automatic inheritance: a spouse automatically inherits all of a dead spouse's belongings (barring prenuptial agreements and so forth) without having to pay estate taxes -- something an unmarried partner is unable to do.

Perhaps marriage ought to be strictly a religious thing; the point is, it's not, and because the state authorizes different-sex marriages but not same-sex unions, the rights of different couples are not equal. I think it's very unlikely that our government here is going to stop legally recognizing any kind of unions. To some degree, there is a good reason to have a separation between a long-standing relationship and a possibly short-term one: you might not want the person you dated last week to be able to visit you in the hospital if you're in an accident, but you certainly want someone you're living with on the long-term -- no matter what the sex or your religious views -- to be able to do so. I think the ability to say to your friends and family, but also to the state, "Look at us: we're committed to each other" need not be a religious thing, and it's also something I think should be allowed to everyone, religious beliefs notwithstanding.

That said, if "marriages" stayed religious and the previously mentioned rights (and others I'm not thinking of) were granted to any couple who wished to apply for them on a legal basis in the form of civil unions, I'd be more than happy.

That was a bit longer than I meant it to be; sorry. Anyway, that's what I think on the issue. =)

From:

That was a bit longer than I meant it to be; sorry.

Not a problem; I don't think it was too long.

From:

jpallan.livejournal.com

Like many others, I object to any kind of protectionism given to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. If the state wants to pull entirely out of the marriage issue and only offer civil unions or domestic partnership licenses, and you can get married on your own religiously if you're so inclined (as in France, where everyone has the legal ceremony and about 60%-odd go on to the religious ceremony), that's totally fine.

If a select religious group wants to only offer marriage to opposite-sex couples, that's fine. They can take the heat, and they're an independent organization and allowed to think and do what they want.

But I object to discriminating in any way against consenting adults in love.

:shrug:

From:

rahaeli.livejournal.com

All right, now that I'm not frothing at the mouth and seeing red anymore (and please understand, I do not mean to attack your personal beliefs here -- or rather, I do mean to attack your beliefs, but not in an antagonistic fashion, and I absolutely do not intend to attack you) --

I am sick and tired of straight people telling me that I am a second class citizen because I love someone who happens to be wearing the same skin I wear. I am sick and tired of people using their religious beliefs to justify bigotry and hatred. I am sick and tired of legislated discrimination.

As many others have pointed out in the comments so far, marriage is not just a religious institution, nor is it simply a personal one; it is a legalized and state-sanctioned form of combining households and estates. Marriage is not simply "we will live together and love each other". Marriage confers a number of benefits, from tax-related to insurance-related to other financial details.

As it stands now, I have no legal rights. If my girlfriend -- soon to be my wife, in our eyes and God's eyes even if not in the law's eyes, and yes, we belong to a church that believes that same-sex marriage is a blessing, not a sin -- were to fall critically ill, I would not be permitted to see her in the hospital. If one of us were to obtain health insurance through a job, the other would not necessarily be permitted to share that insurance -- and if we were, it would be taxed as "imputed income", resulting in a heavy tax penalty. If one of us were to die, the beneficiary of the insurance would be taxed nearly twice as heavily as if we were a heterosexual partnership, and that's even assuming that it was allowed to stand, as the family of the deceased is permitted to challenge the deceased's will (and, in cases of same-sex partnerships, frequently win, leaving the surviving partner with nothing).

I know that you're not living in the US, so you might not be familiar with all of the aspects of "marriage" as a state-sponsored institution, not just a social institution. I'd like to ask you to read this essay (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ladysisyphus/98113.html), reprinted by my girlfriend from a fellow student of hers. It describes why the fight for gay marriage is so important, from someone who's been there and lived it. This post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrmoonpants/87749.html) contains a less emotional analysis of the situation. I have a friend, a man who had been in a partnership with another man for nearly ten years, whose partner was killed suddenly and unexpectedly last year. He is now homeless, because his partner's family did not approve of their son's "lifestyle", challenged their son's will, and won, obtaining the house that my friend and his partner had bought together.

I support a religion's right to define "marriage" any way it wants. Against gay marriage? Don't have one. If your church -- or anyone's church -- thinks that gay marriage is a sin, they don't have to perform them; there are plenty of churches that will and do. But I will not accept being told that I have fewer legal rights than, say, my baby sister, just because one of us is engaged to a boy and one of us is engaged to a girl.

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion regarding this, and I support your opinion and cheer loudly for your right to air it in public fora. The world would be boring if we all thought alike. But when opinion reaches the level of legislated discrimination, ruining people's lives in the name of an ideal that did not even exist before approximately 200 years ago, it is wrong and it is evil and it must be stopped.

From:

I agree absolutely. Gays and lesbians are no less citizen than straights. Right now under federal law, the GBLT community is the only group that it is still legal to discriminate against, as sexual orientation is not covered by federal Civil Rights laws. That puts a damper on and justice for all.

We say we seperate church and state, but we're basing our laws on (rediculous) Judeo-Christian "values." Our president claims to be a compassionate conservative (a paradox if I've ever heard one), but is trying to ammend the constitution against any possibility of same sex marriage- even though his vice presidents daughter is openly lesbian (but then again.. who is Dick Chenney, and where has he been this presidency anyway).

That's the legal aspect... as far as religion is concerned, I don't know about Christian God, under whom this country was obviously founded, but my God loves everybody, white black and purple, gay, straight and everything in between.

From:

p.s.

my girlfriend -- soon to be my wife, in our eyes and God's eyes even if not in the law's eyes

Congratulations <3

From:

pauraque

The thing is that (in the US, at least), there's already a difference between religious marriage and secular marriage. As I understand it, Catholics can't be remarried by the church after they're divorced. However, a Catholic man and woman who have been divorced can still be legally married under US law. Do you oppose that?

From:

lovewithnoface.livejournal.com

It is mainly legally where the problems come in. In some states a single person is allowed to adopt children, but a gay couple is not. (OK this scenario is totally taken from a law and order case but that's irrelevant). There are two women who have been in a long relationship. The one with the higher income adopts, because she is more likely to get approved for adoption. The child lives with both mothers for 7 years, until the two parents split. Now, if gay couples were allowed to adopt, both parents would get visitation rights. But, the woman who adopted shuts the other mother out of their daughters life. The daughter spent 7 years of her life with both mothers, and loved visiting her "other mother's" parents. She had a family, grand parents, two mothers, and she loved her family. But one mother had the legal right to shut every other person who loved the daughter and had helped raise the daughter out of the daughter's life.

In "normal relationships" one parent does not have the legal right to shut the other daughter out. What if the woman who adopted died? The daughter would go to social services, not to the woman who had raised her and loved her; not to the family she loved.

What happens when one partner in a commited gay relationship gets in a car accident and needs an immediate member of the family to sign. The person who has loved and lived with that person for 15, 20 years can't sign. And if they can't contact someone else, the person dies.

In America, there are enormous legal remifications of marriage, and most of them are very important. And then there's the other matter of why these people aren't allowed to be "married" or "legally joined." George Bush believes that gay relationships are immoral because of his religious beliefs and he is forcing his religious beliefs onto the society as a whole. You may not approve of gay marriage, and your religion doesn't have to approve it, but I've yet to see someone offer a good reason for why gay marriage should be illegal. Not a religious reason, because religion isn't supposed to have anything to do with our laws, just a good reason why the American people are safter, better off if gay marriage is forbidden.

I completely understand your image of marriage, and your personal and religious beliefs on the subject. But no is really contesting those. Marriage isn't just religious, it's legal. And I want to know why we are denying part of the population legal benefits, just because it goes against many people's religious morals. Because it's not about religion.

From:

In America, there are enormous legal remifications of marriage, and most of them are very important. And then there's the other matter of why these people aren't allowed to be "married" or "legally joined." George Bush believes that gay relationships are immoral because of his religious beliefs and he is forcing his religious beliefs onto the society as a whole. You may not approve of gay marriage, and your religion doesn't have to approve it, but I've yet to see someone offer a good reason for why gay marriage should be illegal. Not a religious reason, because religion isn't supposed to have anything to do with our laws, just a good reason why the American people are safter, better off if gay marriage is forbidden.

I completely understand your image of marriage, and your personal and religious beliefs on the subject. But no is really contesting those. Marriage isn't just religious, it's legal. And I want to know why we are denying part of the population legal benefits, just because it goes against many people's religious morals. Because it's not about religion.

Thank you for posting this, especially those two paragraphs.

Thinking about it, I suppose that while I think that same-sex marriage is immoral, I'm not sure whether it's the job of the state to enforce those morals.

It would probably be easier to think about if the two roles (religious and legal) were separate.

But while I'm still not sure on what my position about a legal union would be, I'd say it's certainly less strict than my position on a religious union.

Again, thanks for putting it the way you did.

From:

But while I'm still not sure on what my position about a legal union would be, I'd say it's certainly less strict than my position on a religious union.

Not because I feel differently about the union, but because I feel it need not necessarily be legislated to the same standards.

From:

It is however, technically necessary in the United States, due to the 14th ammendment to our constitution. This is the same ammendment that was used to strike down the laws that prevented people of different races from marrying.

From:

Which bit of it makes what necessary?

I presume you're referring to this?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

From:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It was unsuccessfully argued that since anyone could get married, that that offered equal protection, even if the state could restrict who they could marry. That didn't hold up in court for the anti-miscegenation laws that said a black person couldn't marry a white person.

From:

lovewithnoface.livejournal.com

Your welcome. I think the thing that infuriates me the most is that no one is making that distinction. Even people who favour legal union never explain the difference. People can have their own religious beliefs to hell in back (unless they kill people because of them) but when that influences the law it's gone too far.

And we still teach elementary, middle, and high school students about the "seperation of church and state." And while that sounds nice, it's nowhere in our actual laws and isn't in all of our reality either.

Stupid dry drunk president bush. Did I mention that I also hate president's who use their presidency as a personal religious campaign? And who embaress us in front of the world. People don't even need a reason to laugh at Americans anymore.

/me wonders if she could put Bush in the TV and bring the West Wing to life.....

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could stick people you didn't like in the TV? Kinda like Karl and Melissa's moldy bedroom....

From:

lovewithnoface.livejournal.com

Ok, so I was going through my e-mail, looking for another e-mail of yours and found this.

And you replied to yourself, saying

"But while I'm still not sure on what my position about a legal union would be, I'd say it's certainly less strict than my position on a religious union.

Not because I feel differently about the union, but because I feel it need not necessarily be legislated to the same standards."

Which I probably never saw because, well, erm, it's your journal, only you got notified.

And it's years later, but I wanted to say this.

In America anyway, they are separated.

All those people who just go to the courthouse to get married by a Justice of the Peace nd get married, well, they're married in the eyes of the state. Some religions will accept that as a valid marriage, some won't. And, lots of same sex couples for instance can be married by their religious whatever, but the state doesn't recognize it.

And, last I checked, Bush wasn't the Pope, or any kind of religious leader whatsoever, so he isn't the one making decisions on whether or not various sects of various religions will recognize same sex marriage.

Hmm....I am still wound up. Maybe I should post my own...

From:

jordik.livejournal.com

I hear ya.

From:

Actually, according to Merriam-Webster:

Now, if you want to use the word in a way inconsistent with what is now standard English usage, that is certainly your perogative, but it can come across as being kind of hateful, so you may want to be aware you might get some negative responses.

From:

rho

Of course, the dictionary definition doesn't mention love anywhere either...

From:

Indeed, it does not. As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, love is not a prerequisite for marriage, alas. However, if love is not necessary, I think it should be sufficient.

From:

I don't really have much to say aside from what I said above, in response to Rah's comments, but I did want to point out one thing...

From skimming your replies to various comments questioning your beliefs, I noticed quite a number of comments to the effect of "I haven't given that much thought", "I'm not sure", things that are downright out of context in the United States (I realize of course, that you're not in the States, however, considering that this is all stemming from the possible federal legislation against gay marriages, it's something that you may have wanted to take into consideration), lots of questions on your part (actually a good thing... at least you're interested in being knowledgable), etc etc etc...

These comments lead me to one conclusion. To be extremely blunt, it's good that you aren't in charge of a country. (Which is to say, just as harshly, but as less of a hyperbole, perhaps you should concern yourself with the details before you go posting what you know to be controversial statements that are going to get all people all worked up).

That said, you're entitled to your opinion. However, in the context of the meme that has been going around, which clearly refered to the legal aspect of same sex marriages, you probably should have been able to back up your opinion without reverting to religion, for fear of sounding like good ol' george dubya bush.

From:

considering that this is all stemming from the possible federal legislation against gay marriages, it's something that you may have wanted to take into consideration

*nods* I was not aware of that.

lots of questions on your part (actually a good thing... at least you're interested in being knowledgable)

Thank you.

And I'm glad that people have explained things to me and made me think.

These comments lead me to one conclusion. To be extremely blunt, it's good that you aren't in charge of a country.

I agree.

(Which is to say, just as harshly, but as less of a hyperbole, perhaps you should concern yourself with the details before you go posting what you know to be controversial statements that are going to get all people all worked up).

You are right.

Though, in a weak defense, the fact that I hadn't concerned myself with the details or the background meant that I didn't know how much people would get worked up about it, so some of the controversy was not intentional.

However, in the context of the meme that has been going around, which clearly refered to the legal aspect of same sex marriages,

(It wasn't clear to me.)

you probably should have been able to back up your opinion without reverting to religion, for fear of sounding like good ol' george dubya bush.

*nods*

From:

missysedai.livejournal.com

Well, Philip, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

But I disagree with you with all of my heart, and I'm sad to see that you hold such an opinion.

From:

sovereigna.livejournal.com

I hope you don't mind if I do the same thing in my journal. I totally agree with you.

From:

I don't mind, no.

From:

fraught.livejournal.com

You have no idea how badly it hurts me to see this. Yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion you are wrong and your view is discriminatory and unjust.

I'm saddened to say I have just lost quite a bit of respect for you.

From: