----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:20
AM
Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral
Values -- Everyman's America
In a message dated 11/5/2004 10:20:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could you please dumb it down for
non-annointed folks like myself? What are
you trying to say in that
paragraph? What is your position?
It's my belief that prejudices against single-sex relationships, per se,
have greatly diminished over the past few decades and are continuing to
decline. It's also my belief that the prevailing sentiment in this country is
that marriage has a traditional heritage involving a man and a woman, with
hosts of ramifications and lots of complexities -- not the least of which
being the hazy boundary between church and state. The reconciliation of these
two factors (the decline in prejudices and the prevailing sentiment), which
are not necessarily in opposition to one another, can come without redefining
marriage. Surely, there are other ways to provide the key benefits
to single-sex couples that presently accrue to traditional couples, when such
benefits encourage and reward behaviors in some comparable manner.
Al Krigman
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "civil unions" for single-sex
couples give them the same benefits as marriage only in the state
where they live. Benefits the federal government gives to married
heterosexual couples -- federal tax exemptions, etc. -- don't apply. This
is why the human rights groups are pushing for single-sex marriages.
What I can't understand is why conservatives, men in particular, feel so
threatened by the concept of single-sex marriage.
Marianne Das
|
