Very kickass about the same legal rights as hetero marriage. Or at least "relationship" - most religious folks I discuss with are not averse to legal ramifications of gay marriage but the term "marriage" which they feel is restricted to only male and female unions. To have a lifelong monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner isn't actually against most religious folk - but they can be a bit funny about definining it as a marriage per se.
It strikes me as a point of hair-splitting and being silly with names - if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... why do I have to call it a waterfowl? Ultimately - I feel that any relationship that's based on love and respect is worthy of recognition. I think a same-sex loving union is much more "sacred" (depending on how you view sacred, of course) than a tawdry opposite-sex union which may be "correct" in the eyes of state and God. (or Allah. Or Ganesh - although I'm a little fuzzy on the Hindu take on same-sex practices)
Ahem. I get distracted by shiny objects. Could you tell? But this is a great precedent - the sort of thing I've been railing for for a while - since at 12 I was extra lippy about the rights of same-sex couples and alternate sexualities to my church minister. (that and equal rights for women in the church - early advocate of female ministers) See who's the heretic, NOW, eh? :)
And as to names, a poem I didn't write - since my poetry is odd and oblique for the most part:
A rose by any other name Would get the blame For being what it is The colour of a kiss The shadow of a flame
A rose may earn another name So call it love So call it love I will And love is like the sea Which changes constantly And yet is still The same
(From The Silver Metal Lover by Tanith Lee - probably my formative influence to romance in general. Which explains a LOT if you've studied Freud, I'm sure.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-16 08:21 am (UTC)It strikes me as a point of hair-splitting and being silly with names - if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... why do I have to call it a waterfowl? Ultimately - I feel that any relationship that's based on love and respect is worthy of recognition. I think a same-sex loving union is much more "sacred" (depending on how you view sacred, of course) than a tawdry opposite-sex union which may be "correct" in the eyes of state and God. (or Allah. Or Ganesh - although I'm a little fuzzy on the Hindu take on same-sex practices)
Ahem. I get distracted by shiny objects. Could you tell? But this is a great precedent - the sort of thing I've been railing for for a while - since at 12 I was extra lippy about the rights of same-sex couples and alternate sexualities to my church minister. (that and equal rights for women in the church - early advocate of female ministers) See who's the heretic, NOW, eh? :)
And as to names, a poem I didn't write - since my poetry is odd and oblique for the most part:
A rose by any other name
Would get the blame
For being what it is
The colour of a kiss
The shadow of a flame
A rose may earn another name
So call it love
So call it love I will
And love is like the sea
Which changes constantly
And yet is still
The same
(From The Silver Metal Lover by Tanith Lee - probably my formative influence to romance in general. Which explains a LOT if you've studied Freud, I'm sure.)