Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Inquisitor

  Gay people who get married should not be granted extra rights at all. But then, nor should straight people. Every individual citizen should have the same rights regardless of whether they are in a romantic relationship or the exact nature of that relationship.

  FunkyDerek,

  I totally agree. In terms of equality, if the legal and financial priviledges (I wouldn't label them all as rights) that come with marriage are denied to gay people, then they should also be denied to straight people. That is what equality means. But you and I KNOW full well that while the former describes the prevailing situation (except for few places where gay marriage is legally possible) the latter will NEVER EVER be allowed to happen.

  Hell hath no fury to match the day that heteros lose their legal and financial advantages from marriage to prove a point of equality with the gays.

  And I think that is essentially my assertion in this thread:

  The opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the blur of eloquent arguments on definition, values etc. It is a question of whether people see gays as their human equals or not. And the shameful answer is NO. That is why they oppose gay marriage. It has nothing to do with statecraft etc etc, It has more to do with homophobia.

  So while I agree with you in principle, I do not hope to see what you've proposed actually come to fruition.

  Worst case scenario is a highly religious right-wing backlash. One magnitude behind that is where people-against-gay-marriage are delighted that your proposed trimming of marriage privileges has fooled the gays into waiting while they themselves cling on to their status quo. Perpetuating the injustice.

  INQ
• 

  Inquisitor

  Shaz,

  I must also get it off my chest that it is utter nonsense to assert that gays are unable to start a family.

  Haven't you heard of adoption? IVF? The same reproductive technologies that biologically infertile couples attempt? Haven't you met lesbian mums and gay dads?

  It is interesting to observe this technique of alienating gays. Creation of "the other". Tell all they're "unbreedable" and hence elevate the marriage institution to a hetero only priviledge.

  Only for breeders thank you, the rest needn't apply (unless you're straight but infertile or straight and career-driven, in which case we understand!!).

  And you know what the irony is? Who are the people who oppose gay people accessing such reproductive technologies and adoptive options? Yes, shockingly convenient really. Make marriage only for breeders cos it's for "building society". Then make it impossible to have families through alternative means for homos who can't breed. No gay marriage.

  Equality?! But you dont even f*ck like we do.

  INQ
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Was talking about invasion in another thread...

  the problem with gays is that they first require tolerance, then they phagocytose and extend, invade in the way they are doing right now on this very board, then they demand not only tolerance but equality of rights and eventually one can fear that, as any once oppressed group they themselves will become oppressors. Just look at the way they have imposed their distaste of women in the fashion industry.
• 

  Indo_Dude

  LMFAO! That's funny. You really can't be serious about gay men hating women, and using fashion as an example? LOL!
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  using fashion as an example

  Yes, that's what I mean. Who other than gays can possibly have imposed twiggies as model patterns ?
• 

  Indo_Dude

  Yes, that's what I mean. Who other than gays can possibly have impose twiggies as model patterns ?

  LOL, gay guys aren't the ones that buy Swimsuit Illustrated, or Cosmo, or whatever female fashion magazine. If you don't like stick models blame str8 men for their fascination with huge boobs, tiny waists, and no curves. Not gay men. We are gay because we love men, not because we hate women. Most gay men have far more women friends, than any straight guy.

  If you are going to blame gay men for something, blame them for making men have abs, and be in shape for modeling.
• 

  VoidEater

  I'll have a side of side-issues, please...

  Bizzy: Forget gay marriage! I'm still trying to come to terms with GAY CHUBBY DATING.

  I think you may have an uncomfortable fixation with the gay community...! Next: ban plus-size store adverts!

  BTS: everyone wants Statist backing for their faction.

  NNnnno, just equal footing when the law is present. I don't see it as very different from inter-racial marriage - banned by many states until quite recently. I would have no problem if there were NO legal marriage contracts for anyone as an alternative.

  TS: Two married men, by the defintion of equality cannot be the same as two married women or a married heterosexual couple.

  Yeah, that's the ticket! And woeman can never have equal standing under the law as men!

  Shazard: if you GIVE the rights to gays, then you have to PAY extra for heterosexual couples to motivate them to reproduce society members. Otherway why should I waste MY resources for YOUR benefits?

  Hilarious! Why should I, a gay man with no desire for children, pay for schools out of my taxes? Why, because it is of benefit to the society I am a member of to have educated children! And I suspect heterosexuals are gonna have kids whether it is State-sanctioned or not. Something about a biological imperative? Let's ask China, who has tried to STOP childbirths - not very successful, huh?

  BTS: Homosexual marriage bears no fruit. It is sterile.

  So are a lot of heterosexual marriages. Ban them, too? Probably not.

  BTS: This is because homosexuals have tended to be unburdened by the responsibilities of family, which allows more time energy and resources for acheivement in other areas.

  ...which would make them highly effective contributors to society - for baby-sitting if nothing else...diversity is strength. Sexual reproduction is at its heart about diversity.
• 

  Carlos_Helms

  I am opposed to "gay" marriage and yet, curiously, I'm not homophobic.
  
  I'm not "threatened" by homosexuals. What is there to fear?
  
  What "disturbs" me (please pardon me if it's already been said, but I only occasionally check in with some of the latest posts) are individuals or small groups of people who believe that the rest of the world needs to bend to their will. Some homosexuals (read: very vocal homosexuals) - like so many other individuals or groups - are so self-absorbed that they can't possibly see the effects of their desired course of action in a greater context; in this case, societal survivablity. As a side note, I find it interesting that little of "love" is spoken about when sexuality is a topic on discussion boards. Typically, when sexuality is theme, it is more about having a quantity or quality of sex with whomever - and in a variety of ways. I believe it is in that context that we find the proverbial "slippery slope."
  
  Viewing the homosexual marriage matter circumspectly, we have a problem with the "health of a society" as determined by the society vs. the "individual rights" claimed by individuals or groups of individuals. History shows that individual rights are accommodated to the degree possible within a society...that is, until the society feels that the good of the whole is (or will be) negatively effected. Please understand that this can be applied across the board to many different kinds of activities or lifestyles, homosexual marriage notwithstanding. The lines only become blurry when we substitute the "morality" of an activity in place of its effects on overall societal health. In morality, violations are "sins" and sinners are "bad" people. In society, violations are outside mutually-arrived-at "healthful" tolerances...outside the "law," so to speak. I wouldn't presume to make a moral judgment on homosexual marriage. Moral judgments are irrelevant. Societal health IS relevant and much more than just a concept. Within are found common tried and proven institutions which determine a society's success or failure. The society itself, then, is empowered to determine what is "acceptable." It's not personal...it's simply what works. Marriage and family are institutions that, by and large, have thrived for thousands of years in their traditional forms. Together they are the cornerstone of a society. When a society deviates far enough from those traditions, when marriage and family are no longer "solid," the society deteriorates.
  
  That being said, I have no problem with homosexuality. My realtor (who happens to be homosexual), is a man I choose to do business with because he is a friend and a quality human being. As such, he is also an outstanding spokesman for the homosexual community. He represents himself well and, his sexuality being "second nature" (as it should be with everyone), he rarely finds himself in conflict with anyone (incidentally, he is opposed to homosexual marriage). Allow society to determine what is best for society (it has far greater minds than ours) so that everyone can enjoy the rights and privileges of being human.
  
  Peace,
  Carlos
• 

  Inquisitor

  I am opposed to "gay" marriage and yet, curiously, I'm not homophobic.

  Indeed. You just prefer that homosexuals quit being so vocal about their rights cause it's infringing on the interests of "your" society. How curious...

  Some homosexuals...are so self-absorbed that they can't possibly see the effects of their desired course of action in a greater context; in this case, societal survivablity.

  I still don't see the connection between gay-straight equality and "societal survivability". What's to survive? Has the global population dropped by a few billion last night? Did charity organizations run out of children to adopt? Or are we doing the sermon from a moral values pulpit? In what way does social equality jeopardize survival of humankind?

  Nobody mentioned quality/quantity of sex on this thread as far as I'm aware. Don't deviate. We're talking about equality.

  When you assert that society's "needs" trump the marriage rights of homosexuals, you need to demonstrate 2 things:

  (1) How is there a conflict between the needs of society (not just Christian, not just heteros) and those of gays? In fact what IS SOCIETY to you? Do you realize that by speaking of gays as if they were outside of society, outside of the interests of society, you show you do not see them as belonging to it? Would you like to revisit your self-examination on homophobia?

  (2) How is it that calling gays a noisy, selfish bunch and telling them to conform to the heterosexual preference of society does not contradict the principles of liberal democracy? Had you been arguing for gay interests, Shazard would be ringing the village bell by now, shouting "The communists are here!!". Are you a Commie? Socialist?You better f*cking not be in this maginificent capital-driven world today.

  Sure, every pressure group must justify why they want a certain right recognized by society. And your point is? The vocal gays haven't made it clear to you? You still don't know why gays want gay marriage recognized? Do you see the word "Equality" at the start of this thread?

  Or did you stop paying attention because in your mind "it's the highly vocal gay agenda again!"? Would you like to revisit your self-examination on homophobia?

  Allow society to determine what is best for society (it has far greater minds than ours) so that everyone can enjoy the rights and privileges of being human.

  And I thought rational thought and open discourse is meant to accomplish that. Not sucking up to the status quo. By your logic, if a village is populated with idiots in the majority, we should just go by what idiots say. Is it mob rule that knows what's best for us?

  INQ
• 

  Hortensia

  well, I come at it from the other side. I don't think anyone should get married. There's a culture in China where adults have different partners, as they want, and the children stay with the mother. Property is inherited through the female line to protect the children, and the most important male in a child's life is mom's brother. Makes more sense to me. As for gay marriages, marriage is a private arrangement between two people. I don't see why male/female is the only allowed combination. People should be treated equally, as much as possible, so why not allow equal opportunity to marry? I think it's an issue of privacy, of equality under law, and there is another serious issue - as one of my friends put it, justice delayed is justice denied.