This book convinced me that gay marriage is not a human right and is indeed, probably detrimental to gay communities in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.
This isn't about human rights, it's about enforcing a code of bourgeois morality. It's okay to be gay, as long as you are monogamous and live in a house with a white picket fence. People who support it should think about how monolithic and "the same" our communities are becoming through the intervention of the State.
Fascism.....
Peter I think you are being a bit monolithic lately.
This book convinced me that gay marriage is not a human right and is indeed, probably detrimental to gay communities in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.
This isn't about human rights, it's about enforcing a code of bourgeois morality. It's okay to be gay, as long as you are monogamous and live in a house with a white picket fence. People who support it should think about how monolithic and "the same" our communities are becoming through the intervention of the State.
I know about 5 happily married gay couples that would vehimently disagree with you.
This book convinced me that gay marriage is not a human right and is indeed, probably detrimental to gay communities in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.
This isn't about human rights, it's about enforcing a code of bourgeois morality. It's okay to be gay, as long as you are monogamous and live in a house with a white picket fence. People who support it should think about how monolithic and "the same" our communities are becoming through the intervention of the State.
Not every gay person wants to get married, but the point is they should have the right should they decide they would like to.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
We all heard it. "They are going to force churches to perform gay marriages against their will". That was the argument.
They don't have to hold a wedding in their buildings if they don't want to and I've never heard of that being challenged. Have you?
The idea that two guys would try to force the issue of getting married in the Mormon Temple is laughable. They wouldn't even be Mormons if it got to that.
You do realize that most religions become more and more progressive each year? The United Church has gay members today, where 20 years ago they didn't.
So its not that crazy to think that a gay Mormon couple might request to get married in the big Cardston temple, and when the Mormon church refuses they'll go to court over it.
I have no idea what the ruling would be, but it does worry some people.
This book convinced me that gay marriage is not a human right and is indeed, probably detrimental to gay communities in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.
This isn't about human rights, it's about enforcing a code of bourgeois morality. It's okay to be gay, as long as you are monogamous and live in a house with a white picket fence. People who support it should think about how monolithic and "the same" our communities are becoming through the intervention of the State.
Could be.
But I disagree with the idea of the government deciding exactly that for its citizens. People need to be personally responsible for their own lives.
Why not lose the chaps, and have a parade showing the gay doctors, lawyers and teachers that are just as normal and deserve as much respect as their peers.
Welcome to the least entertaining parade in the world.
I only read half this thread, so forgive me if this has already been said. Unless they change the actual word "marriage" to "civil union" in anything relating to the government, then everyone has the right to marriage. Take the word out of government entirely, and let the religious people have their word back, and that should be the end of it.
My gut feeling though, even if that happened, a lot of the people against gay marriage will find something new to argue about. A lot of them are really just using religion as an excuse to act like a bigot, and then claiming that they're not. It's like the people who go "I'm not trying to be racist, but...".
That's cool, and as I said earlier, no one is arguing that your church should have to marry a gay couple if they don't want to.
However why should that make you opposed to gay couples being allowed to have civil marriages?
If you're so opposed to gay marriages because you think marriage is a strictly religious instituion, then are you opposed to straight couples getting married in a strictly civil ceremony?
That's my point though. I don't believe in civil marriages. I mean, yes, they obviously do exist, but to me marriage is a religious institution more than anything else.
That's my point though. I don't believe in civil marriages. I mean, yes, they obviously do exist, but to me marriage is a religious institution more than anything else.
So two people that love each other as much as you would love your future wife should be denied the same rights as you because their beliefs are different? And you're not a bigot how?
In the Bible, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
There is so much sheer stupidty, ignorance, and bigotry in that tired, cliche, bumper-sticker motto of the fanatical, religious-right that it pretty much invalidates anything you have to say after that.
So two people that love each other as much as you would love your future wife should be denied the same rights as you because their beliefs are different? And you're not a bigot how?
This is the fallacy at the heart of the gay marriage argument. First of all, gay couples are not being married in droves. The number, I believe, has been decreasing subsequently each year since the state recognized gay marriages.
This enforces a new norm upon a community which has traditionally proudly stood outside of the regular social norms.
This is the fallacy at the heart of the gay marriage argument. First of all, gay couples are not being married in droves. The number, I believe, has been decreasing subsequently each year since the state recognized gay marriages.
This enforces a new norm upon a community which has traditionally proudly stood outside of the regular social norms.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because there are a large number of promiscuous gays, that monogamous gays should be denied marriage rights? Not that this is hard data, but most of the gay couples I know have been together for 10+ years.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because there are a large number of promiscuous gays, that monogamous gays should be denied marriage rights? Not that this is hard data, but most of the gay couples I know have been together for 10+ years.
I think because of promiscuous straights, marriage should be outlawed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
That's my point though. I don't believe in civil marriages. I mean, yes, they obviously do exist, but to me marriage is a religious institution more than anything else.
There are Christian sects that marry gay people. Would you deny them their freedom of religion and impose your own values?
There are Christian sects that marry gay people. Would you deny them their freedom of religion and impose your own values?
That's what I don't understand about the religious right. Isn't it up to God to dictate what's right and what's wrong? And isn't all of this decided in the afterlife anyways? What difference does it make to you if two strangers with penises are allowed to get married in a church that isn't yours?
