View Single Post


September 3rd, 2007, 23:13
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
There's a subtle distinction you may have missed: my point is that the state should stay out of the business of defining what marriage should mean subjectively and emotionally, and stick to defining what it means contractually. There's no good test for "strong emotional content," or even "intimacy and trust," so there's no point in looking for one either.
No argument there, from me anyway. I don't know that I missed the nuance you alude to, I was just putting the other piece of the equation—relationship—into the puzzle. The reasons why persons of the same sex are asking for equal treatment in a legally recognized union are manifold, but I think the emotional ones are if not paramount, equally driving. It's a validation, of themselves as who/what they are, and of the legitimacy of their relationship to the other person.

The state can only deal with the legality, at least that's my feeling. But even a civil contract can be an emotional validation, and many seek it for that reason.

(not including lemmings, because they're anathema).
More of a prerequisite, I'd say.

And, yes, I find that particular Islamic practice rather chilling too. But then, some people would find a tortured corpse nailed to a gibbet a somewhat chilling object of worship as well, no?
Have you read Memnoch the Devil by Ann Rice? She propounds a very similar question. Like all lapsed Catholic girls, she can really whang down on the guilt factor.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline


magerette's Avatar


Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929