![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Decided I wanted to save it.
The interesting thing from my point of view is that I have a certain amount of sympathy for the "societal disorder" issues, and come to the opposite conclusion that the person Freyr quotes does.
I think it's not only in the legitimate interests of a society to have some sort of qualifications for what partnerships it will recognise and those it does not, I think that it's probably part of the nature of a society to do this. What rituals or qualifications make a partnership legit will vary a lot depending on the culture, but I would suspect that they have always existed.
With the case of gay marriage in specific, there are partnerships that exist that cannot pass through the rituals of recognition (legal marriage). This splits the original society into two groups -- those that will not accept gays into the ritual, and those who come up with a new ritual that covers the partnerships that exist.
The social problem exists and is real: a society that does not have a means of recognising for itself partnerships that exist is setting itself up for social turmoil and schism. I think the appropriate solution is to change the ritual so that a broader selection of partnerships can be recognised; I think this not only because I think that individual people deserve more consideration than societies, but because it is the choice that creates and perpetuates social bonds and strengthens the community.
Other people seem to believe that the community is threatened with destruction when its rituals are modified. I have enough sympathy with the fears to understand it, but I cannot agree with it.
The interesting thing from my point of view is that I have a certain amount of sympathy for the "societal disorder" issues, and come to the opposite conclusion that the person Freyr quotes does.
I think it's not only in the legitimate interests of a society to have some sort of qualifications for what partnerships it will recognise and those it does not, I think that it's probably part of the nature of a society to do this. What rituals or qualifications make a partnership legit will vary a lot depending on the culture, but I would suspect that they have always existed.
With the case of gay marriage in specific, there are partnerships that exist that cannot pass through the rituals of recognition (legal marriage). This splits the original society into two groups -- those that will not accept gays into the ritual, and those who come up with a new ritual that covers the partnerships that exist.
The social problem exists and is real: a society that does not have a means of recognising for itself partnerships that exist is setting itself up for social turmoil and schism. I think the appropriate solution is to change the ritual so that a broader selection of partnerships can be recognised; I think this not only because I think that individual people deserve more consideration than societies, but because it is the choice that creates and perpetuates social bonds and strengthens the community.
Other people seem to believe that the community is threatened with destruction when its rituals are modified. I have enough sympathy with the fears to understand it, but I cannot agree with it.
