In marriage we all have the POWER to choose HOW it works and WHOM rules apply too . For many of us, Marriage defines the boundaries of our freedom and power ,
How is it possible that many would so calmly change the definition of something that would normally make us potentially very emotional
Perhaps States should stay well away? . It's the politicians idea after all that CHANGE is necessary ( or more accurately some minority they have to listen to stay in power ) Resisting change driven by minorities welding their power makes great sense to me.
- We are overwhelmed by wannabes ( many of whom now DO NOT represent us ) who want legislation make US perform better - so why wouldn't more coercion be a consequence of more law in this area ?
- Law is not about love, but protection in truly libertarian countries ( cf tyranical ) Law is not about giving in to noisemakers, but objective risk and reaction assessment .
- this equality talk has hidden tyranny before ------Orwell Huxley Marx.
I don't believe for a moment that the push for same ceremony, same status is genuine --. The people who want to fix themselves to ancient ceremony is decreasing by the hour .
There is more to what we are being asked to consider than has been simply put so far ,
So what is this push to change the language and include SSM really all about ?
Let me state some guidelines
1. Reason often provides no answers to these emotional matters We are not able to see peoples motivations and even if we were we would have to admit that they are complex and probably even contradictory. Wretched man that I am . self justifying excuse making stuff .
One thing is certain then - we are all at risk of getting losts in some logic train if we as lost greeks want to play that game before we decide anything
Lets face facts --we are only pretend Greeks - we decide things on prejudice ; our faith our world view . maybe evidence comes in somewhere and for those who aren't still members of the Children's party ( ABC Qand A Aug 21st 2017) there is the valid weight of experience,
2. Evidence and experience must be weighed up --- called sustainability the way we are going ( yes advocates wanna keep it simple) this will not happen,
Marriage, as we have known it, has the weight of centuries of support . Not even the might of Marx and Shaw is enough to stop Trad marriage (TM) resurfacing as a ship once sunk The simple logic that the Russions used was common even here at the turn of last century" its only a piece of paper , ceremony and doesn't work ( the clincher for many who worship new technique)
--A list of all states in the world who have adopted SSM into actual legislation must be published ASAP dates
3. We rely on objective assessment of real risks and real damage from peoples sexual choices -not feelings. probabilities of real damage must be weighed up , not ignored in the change of focus that occurs when changing the focus of civil marriage ( protection of women and children ) It is not sufficient to say that gays can look after children- they clearly can .
4, We must should reject the simple and the sentimental - note this is saying we respect reason but may not rely on it .
Most of us get very emotional about Marriage so we will defend it a little too simply We are all likely to get fanatical in our opinion about how it works or should work . In marriage we all have the POWER to choose HOW it works and WHOM rules apply too . For many of us, Marriage defines the boundaries of our freedom and power ,
- the way we are going ( yes advocates wanna keep it simple) complex discussions will not happen before the due date This is plain wrong
- -the evidence is that we ALL have bigots and bigotry in our camps , The more certain you are about what life makes work the more " bigoted " you can seem to the uncertain.
5 We should stick to the subject ( civil marriage and not be distracted by all the religious variations)
6 We should stick to advocating Law changes ONLY when its really necessary . This talk of legislating about love leaves everyone's mind at home . Child protection for civil union couples and adoptive parents and surrogacy should be a separate matter,particularly as the children s identity is more predictable outside TM . https://docs.google.com/document/d/19eqr4CYCMNJUpVPYgpsqyuV-zL99NiqUZnW4HgFPXm0/edit?usp=sharing
Reason provides no answers ( If Nonchristian C -see Susan Neiman )If C -The idea of marriage is God's and he knows more than us ( Genesis 2:18) Its such a great idea even Non believers get to benefit from it ----either way .... limit the talk