Great questions, Skunks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skunks
Are people who argue for "gay rights" specifically pushing for the term "marriage", or do people mostly want the rights and authenticity associated with marriage, regardless of what term is slapped on it?
|
Percecption is everything. Isn't that what is often said?
From many Christians' perspective, gay rights activists are trying to harm the Christian cummunity for their non-exceptance of them now, and for their persecution of them in the past. Right or wrong, they are threatened by making the the institution of marriage anything other than what it is now....one man, one woman. The "moderate" Christians or even "moderate" Catholics tend to be sympathic to giving gays rights under the law but are uncomfortable with including gay marriage with the traditional definition of marriage. Might this be why the consitutional amendment failed while the majority of Americans seem to oppose it?
NPR Poll: Gay Marriage Sharply Divides Likely Voters
"The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg,
found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it."
Enter Stage Right - Traditionalists must revise gay marriage lexicon
"Similarly, what we seek is not so much to "ban" anything as to preserve the existing, traditional definition of marriage. This is a debate between those who want to change what marriage means and those who believe there is value in keeping it the way it is."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skunks
I ask because I can understand where people who want to keep marriage separate are coming from (isn't it a fairly fundamentally religious institution?) What I don't understand is any opposition to an otherwise identical legal bond. I was going to go on one of my rants-against-an-enemy-who-doesn't-exist, but in rereading it sounded as though I was pushing a 'separate-but-equal' agenda as a middle ground.
|
If the term marriage is more a religious term than anything else, why would having two separate but equal terms be so terrible? Because the phrase infers some kind of illegal descrimination? I don't know?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skunks
I'm not sure such a compromise is good, both because it probably doesn't change the fundamental issue of bigotry towards homosexuals and because it starts us down a more probable slippery slope than any that end in marriage between man and dog. "Separate but equal" and such. Would it be justified in this case, because there are more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites, to keep them separate?
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites". It would seem to me that the reverse is true. One would normally be more likely to tell a person's skin color than what their orientation is. I must be missing something here.
The difference is skin color is not something you can change or choose. To the Christians, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If it's a choice you can chose not to do it. If you chose not to do it, you wont get grief from them.
