I voted "yes", of course, because quite frankly I cannot for the life of me see how allowing people who aren't heterosexual to marry is going to "damage marriage".
if anyone who is busy screaming about how it's going to result in priests being forced to perform gay weddings against their wills and against religious canon can actually point to a single case of this having occurred anywhere in the world where non-heterosexual marriage is already permitted, then I'll start paying attention to this particular argument. But until then... it's a stupid argument.
It's not a stupid argument: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/378987.html I wrote that in 2006, predicting that the legalization of gay marriage would cause mainline centrist churches to risk schism, and, lo! a year later the Anglican church had a schism.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
It totally does, if by "marriage" one means "patriarchal, male supremicist, traditionalist marriage": https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/377938.html
if anyone who is busy screaming about how it's going to result in priests being forced to perform gay weddings against their wills and against religious canon can actually point to a single case of this having occurred anywhere in the world where non-heterosexual marriage is already permitted, then I'll start paying attention to this particular argument. But until then... it's a stupid argument.
It's not a stupid argument: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/378987.html I wrote that in 2006, predicting that the legalization of gay marriage would cause mainline centrist churches to risk schism, and, lo! a year later the Anglican church had a schism.