Well, I guess that depends on why the state was interested in marriage in the first place.
When I really think about it, this issue has nothing to do with gay/straight and the real reason it irritates me is because of the inconsistency and the ambiguity of arguments on both sides.
To me, it seems that we no sooner rid society of one irrational moralistic influence (organised religion) to replace it with another.
Heterosexual relationships affect everyone (Homosexual people wouldn't exist without heterosexual relationships, the reverse is not true), so a disparity exists due to biology.
The states interest in marriage was only ever related to the biology of our species, ie marriage ideals happen to coincide with the biological ideal for raising happy (and therefore less problematic) future citizens.
The state is not supposed to mess with tradition or provide legitimacy for insecure homosexuals, legal equality yes, redefining tradition no.
Legislating morality is always problematic, either for the positive or negative of a particular agenda.
I don't think anyone should pretend this issue is about anything else.
I made that a bit easy for you, Shunda, so I'll have another go at it :-)
Well, I guess that depends on why the state was interested in marriage in the first place. To clarify property ownership should that marriage be dissolved - is that it?
When I really think about it, this issue has nothing to do with gay/straight and the real reason it irritates me is because of the inconsistency and the ambiguity of arguments on both sides. Nothing to do with gay/straight? Do you think Louissa Wall has a deeper agenda?
To me, it seems that we no sooner rid society of one irrational moralistic influence (organised religion) to replace it with another. Have we rid society of the influence of organised religion? I don't think so!
Heterosexual relationships affect everyone (Homosexual people wouldn't exist without heterosexual relationships, the reverse is not true), so a disparity exists due to biology. You are playing with words. Homosexuals breed, to be sure, to be sure, especially when they haven't/can't declare their bias, so your claim is wrong.
The states interest in marriage was only ever related to the biology of our species, ie marriage ideals happen to coincide with the biological ideal for raising happy (and therefore less problematic) future citizens. How was that different from the Church (aside from that 'ownership/control' thingy?
The state is not supposed to mess with tradition What! Not 'supposed' to? Who says? or provide legitimacy for insecure homosexuals,What a pejorative, arrogant term, Shunda - seems you've got something against those folk! legal equality yes, redefining tradition no. Adding to a tradition, yes. Making a tradition open to previously unfairly excluded parties, yes. Rationalising an anachronism, yes. Democracy, it's a beach, Shunda, as you know.
Legislating morality is always problematic, either for the positive or negative of a particular agenda.
Morality isn't being legalised here, human rights are. Are you claiming it was 'immoral' for gay couples to say they were married up til now? Wfh?
I don't think anyone should pretend this issue is about anything else. Seems that you are (see above)
Morality isn't being legalised here, human rights are. Are you claiming it was 'immoral' for gay couples to say they were married up til now? Wfh?
What does "Wfh" mean?
In any case, I reject the idea that this is about human rights.
It is actually about 'human ideals' and that is a fundamentally different aspect of society.
I read a statement the other day that said whenever people loose sight of ideals, power politics (and the resultant mess) always ensues.
I see this issue as a text book case of that, no rational arguments at the forefront, just power politics and the shallowness and nastiness that is generates. Democracy? yes, but it is the weakest most destructive form of democracy.
I couldn't care less if gay couples exchange rings and have a weeding and call themselves married, but it won't be traditional marriage because they aren't a traditional married couple. Is this really that hard to understand Robert? recognisng the noble commitment between a man and woman is not negative discrimination and is certainly not a violation of anyone's fundamental human rights.
To me, this is all about a state endorsement of homosexual citizens, which is fine in itself, however, the way they did it was to stamp all over someone else's benevolent tradition and then push people like me (that object) into the far right reaches of all that is bigoted and evil.
Of all the issues I could speak of under my own name, this is the one I wouldn't dare, It would be like speaking out against the church in the 1950's.
Like I said, there has been a changing of the guard, but it is still the same old crap.
Wth (what the hell...are you talking about??) Why is it a right for heteros to marry but not a right for homos? You offer no substance to that claim, other than, you don't believe it to be true. " I couldn't care less if gay couples exchange rings and have a weeding and call themselves married, but it won't be traditional marriage because they aren't a traditional married couple. Is this really that hard to understand Robert? Not at all (I take it you meant 'wedding' - as a gardener, that's a word that's dear to my heart and I hate to see it misused :-) You are saying that you don't oppose the bill, you're simply going to believe that they're something different from a traditional marriage - that's fine by me! Of course you are right, their gay marriage can't be a hetero marriage. Can't see a problem with the perception myself.
no rational arguments at the forefront,
Really? I hadn't noticed the lack thereof. Must be a perception thing.
then push people like me (that object) into the far right reaches of all that is bigoted and evil. Rational argument will only provoke those who don't use and understand it, Shunda. Why do you worry about those dopes?
Shunda, despite being a supporter of gay marriage, I've really appreciated your intelligent and thoughtful input here, and on Frogblog on this issue.
Your words, although not changing my mind, have given me at least a base understanding of those opposed, tho' dare I say it, some of the saner ones! ;)
9 comments:
They may not care who's on top, but they want everyone to know about it and want a specific state endorsement.
Insecure much?
The Church used to do that sort of thing too, it's called "legislating morality".
Heterosexual couples who want to marry, that is, get a specific State endorsement - Insecure much?
Well, I guess that depends on why the state was interested in marriage in the first place.
When I really think about it, this issue has nothing to do with gay/straight and the real reason it irritates me is because of the inconsistency and the ambiguity of arguments on both sides.
To me, it seems that we no sooner rid society of one irrational moralistic influence (organised religion) to replace it with another.
Heterosexual relationships affect everyone (Homosexual people wouldn't exist without heterosexual relationships, the reverse is not true), so a disparity exists due to biology.
The states interest in marriage was only ever related to the biology of our species, ie marriage ideals happen to coincide with the biological ideal for raising happy (and therefore less problematic) future citizens.
The state is not supposed to mess with tradition or provide legitimacy for insecure homosexuals, legal equality yes, redefining tradition no.
Legislating morality is always problematic, either for the positive or negative of a particular agenda.
I don't think anyone should pretend this issue is about anything else.
Legal equality?
Does a civil union equate with marriage? Nope. Ability to adopt is one example.
I made that a bit easy for you, Shunda, so I'll have another go at it :-)
Well, I guess that depends on why the state was interested in marriage in the first place.
To clarify property ownership should that marriage be dissolved - is that it?
When I really think about it, this issue has nothing to do with gay/straight and the real reason it irritates me is because of the inconsistency and the ambiguity of arguments on both sides.
Nothing to do with gay/straight? Do you think Louissa Wall has a deeper agenda?
To me, it seems that we no sooner rid society of one irrational moralistic influence (organised religion) to replace it with another.
Have we rid society of the influence of organised religion? I don't think so!
Heterosexual relationships affect everyone (Homosexual people wouldn't exist without heterosexual relationships, the reverse is not true), so a disparity exists due to biology.
You are playing with words. Homosexuals breed, to be sure, to be sure, especially when they haven't/can't declare their bias, so your claim is wrong.
The states interest in marriage was only ever related to the biology of our species, ie marriage ideals happen to coincide with the biological ideal for raising happy (and therefore less problematic) future citizens.
How was that different from the Church (aside from that 'ownership/control' thingy?
The state is not supposed to mess with tradition
What! Not 'supposed' to? Who says? or provide legitimacy for insecure homosexuals,What a pejorative, arrogant term, Shunda - seems you've got something against those folk! legal equality yes, redefining tradition no.
Adding to a tradition, yes. Making a tradition open to previously unfairly excluded parties, yes. Rationalising an anachronism, yes. Democracy, it's a beach, Shunda, as you know.
Legislating morality is always problematic, either for the positive or negative of a particular agenda.
Morality isn't being legalised here, human rights are. Are you claiming it was 'immoral' for gay couples to say they were married up til now? Wfh?
I don't think anyone should pretend this issue is about anything else.
Seems that you are (see above)
Morality isn't being legalised here, human rights are. Are you claiming it was 'immoral' for gay couples to say they were married up til now? Wfh?
What does "Wfh" mean?
In any case, I reject the idea that this is about human rights.
It is actually about 'human ideals' and that is a fundamentally different aspect of society.
I read a statement the other day that said whenever people loose sight of ideals, power politics (and the resultant mess) always ensues.
I see this issue as a text book case of that, no rational arguments at the forefront, just power politics and the shallowness and nastiness that is generates.
Democracy? yes, but it is the weakest most destructive form of democracy.
I couldn't care less if gay couples exchange rings and have a weeding and call themselves married, but it won't be traditional marriage because they aren't a traditional married couple.
Is this really that hard to understand Robert? recognisng the noble commitment between a man and woman is not negative discrimination and is certainly not a violation of anyone's fundamental human rights.
To me, this is all about a state endorsement of homosexual citizens, which is fine in itself, however, the way they did it was to stamp all over someone else's benevolent tradition and then push people like me (that object) into the far right reaches of all that is bigoted and evil.
Of all the issues I could speak of under my own name, this is the one I wouldn't dare, It would be like speaking out against the church in the 1950's.
Like I said, there has been a changing of the guard, but it is still the same old crap.
Wth (what the hell...are you talking about??)
Why is it a right for heteros to marry but not a right for homos?
You offer no substance to that claim, other than, you don't believe it to be true.
"
I couldn't care less if gay couples exchange rings and have a weeding and call themselves married, but it won't be traditional marriage because they aren't a traditional married couple.
Is this really that hard to understand Robert?
Not at all (I take it you meant 'wedding' - as a gardener, that's a word that's dear to my heart and I hate to see it misused :-)
You are saying that you don't oppose the bill, you're simply going to believe that they're something different from a traditional marriage - that's fine by me! Of course you are right, their gay marriage can't be a hetero marriage. Can't see a problem with the perception myself.
no rational arguments at the forefront,
Really? I hadn't noticed the lack thereof. Must be a perception thing.
then push people like me (that object) into the far right reaches of all that is bigoted and evil.
Rational argument will only provoke those who don't use and understand it, Shunda. Why do you worry about those dopes?
Shunda, despite being a supporter of gay marriage, I've really appreciated your intelligent and thoughtful input here, and on Frogblog on this issue.
Your words, although not changing my mind, have given me at least a base understanding of those opposed, tho' dare I say it, some of the saner ones! ;)
Thanks Suz, and please believe me when I say I would never let this issue determine how I feel toward someone that is otherwise friendly toward me.
Incidentally, I met lots of interesting people in Wellington, and had some great conversations about life and love!!
Post a Comment