Posted by yxibow on November 9, 2008, at 21:45:40
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 20:54:35
> I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. But why limit it to two people?
>
> A fair amount of trouble was caused in my family by the interference of the federal government into legal (at the time) polygamous marriages. My greatgrandparents happened to be children of second wives who were in one stroke of the pen made illegitimate and certainly didn't receive equal inheritances. If the definition of marriage is to be opened up, why limit it to two people? My ancestors had committed three member relationships (both happened to be three member, although I understand there were sometimes more) that seemed to work well enough for them.
>
> It's always kind of bothered me that my poor respectable great great grandmothers had their marriages invalidated when Utah joined the Union. There should have at the very least been a grandfather clause, so to speak.It was a federal decision for Utah to enter the union. Its now enforced by Utah tightly.
Lots of things in the past were influenced by federal decision, such as I believe if you are part of our volunteer army, or the peace corps, that if you are an adult at 18, you should be able to drink at 18, and not overseas where its allowed to some extent, but here.
Alas, states that still were 18 with alcohol, again were threatened to remove highway funding. Nobody wanted potholes so slowly in the 80s the last states converted to 21.
As for gay marriage -- it was a single issue here, I'm not going to name the group that poured money into it because I'm trying to be civil -- its hard to though when you're arguing politics, because I believe it is a fundamental right for myself and does not invalidate anybody's heterosexual, homosexual, non-married cohabitation, marriage.
I'm agnostic. I don't believe religion should govern push button issues in our country and Lincoln would be turning over in his grave as well as our founding fathers who were largely secular. We are among the few Western countries where this is such a guiding principle.
Such as ...one nation indivisible... and then the 50s added one nation "under god" indivisible...
Far be it from me to define what people believe themselves in their religion, but as our country is a collection of cultures, no religion should dominate and inculcate values in our country. Religion should be a private practice, to comfort those who need a hope or definition of things that cannot be explained.
Some day this will change in this country, but not if values are continuously entering politics.
Our nation was founded under a fundamental separation of church and state.
Our nation also is an evolving nation, with evolving cultures that endured harassment, bigotry, and hate crimes and managed to succeed generations later.
And this evolving nation also includes gay and lesbian individuals such as myself, who should be recognized just as any other person.
And the rights bestowed, which are about 1,200, should be given to those who are in a loving commitment to each other.
I am the product of the second generation of Stonewall, and I now see the third generation, and it is curious how they forget what brought them there.
My OCD though went through lots of phases, was largely started by my sexuality. My parents are not particularly overtly sexual, I was never chastised by religion in the family. It was magical thinking and worry about what people at school would think about what was actually very private. Yes, OCD is a biological condition for life basically, but psychological issues are usually a trigger for it to break out.
I have gotten to a point where I take my sexuality for granted -- I would never "choose" to be so, I am so, I was born so. Who would choose to be such a minority in the country and face discrimination and finding a partner a difficult journey?
I chose to be a vegetarian -- that's quite different, that's another minority.
I didn't choose to be mentally ill -- who would choose to be that ? Its an extra struggle in your life. I was born with a tendency.
I have a religion but I'm not religious, I'm agnostic. I identify with the Jewish culture but I don't really go to temple. So I'm multiple minorities.
But to make an aside, I don't think people should define themselves by their illness, but rather by their strengths and interests. That's a projection, because I have a tendency to forget that. Anyhow, its just a side comment.
May we all some day live in this country, regardless of political views and "red" and "blue", not having multiple issues of a religious nature placed on ballots. You can't argue with religion and science and the separation of church and state all the same time.
All the millions that were spent on one proposition could have gone to charity or anything else.
Anyhow, good will to all men and women -- yes that is a religious aphorism, but I'll say it in a civil manner to extend across the aisles shall I say.
-- Jay
poster:yxibow
thread:861505
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20081002/msgs/861941.html