3 ms·

Really, denied them their human rights? I think you might be overblowing the horn just slightly there. Sigh. Nobody is being oppressed. In most progressive

Really, denied them their human rights? I think you might be overblowing the horn just slightly there. Sigh. Nobody is being oppressed. In most progressive countries, civil unions are available, which confer exactly the same benefits and rights as a traditional marriage. In fact, in many countries, you don't even need to do that - simply having a de-facto relationship will be enough. So basically, it's about a word - in this case "marriage", which has traditionally been between a man and a woman, they want to redefine it to include any two humans. I'm not saying that tradition is "right" just because we've done it that way for thousands of years - maybe it's "right" that words should change over time. However, to try to claim the moral high ground by making disingenuous comparisons to Apartheid is pretty disgusting for all those that actually suffered through Apartheid. What next? Comparisons to the pogrums?

scarmig 13y ago
Not overblowing at all. Marriage is a human right. Since you're in such an affected high dudgeon over apartheid [1], here's a question for you: was the ban on interracial marriage something anti-apartheid activists blew off as just a jolly good time that's not at all oppressive, or did they consider it part and parcel of an oppressive system? [1] An aside: Do you know anything at all about apartheid? Did you actually protest against it? Do you you know about the deep links between the LGBT-rights movement and anti-apartheid movement, which was a factor that led to South Africa's being the only constitution in Africa, and one of the first in the world, to give formal equal rights to the LGBT community and subsequently legalize gay marriage?
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Well, your point is actually a logical inequality - apartheid was against the idea of interracial relationships, married or not. It's not exactly like these interracial couples were offered a "union" which conferred the same rights, but don't call it a marriage. But even if they were, it's still not close to the current battle over gay "marriage". For most of recorded human history, the concept of marriage was very much tied to the idea of family. For example, Susan Treggiari, a professor of Roman history writes "Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her". Homosexual relationships cannot by definition create a family - they are not a procreative relationship. I'm not saying they're wrong because of this - this is simply a biological fact. This is what a lot of gay marriage activists seem to miss - it's not opposition to the idea of them together. If they want to be together, they will be together. It's simply that they wish to come along and redefine an existing word, to fit a new definition of what a family is. Perhaps as a society, we will agree - and we will allow "marriage" between any two humans, and gender will become irrelevant. However, to simply come along and assume, oh, a man and woman get it, so a man and man should get it automatically is either being intentionally blind, or very presumptuous. A man and woman family is different to one composed of a man and a man - not because one is more valuable or not valuable - but simply because of their roles. It's like saying, oh, a woman gets pregnant, so she must be more valuable than the man in a marriage. Well no, they are different - they play different parts, and we call them different things.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    So it comes down to "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." You just recite a long litany of naturalistic fallacies and claims that marriage is X because marriage is X. Yeah, there's a reason people think people who support straight marriage while opposing gay marriage are homophobic bigots.
    - victorhooi 13y ago
      Dude, it's biology....sigh. (And probably anthropology thrown in there as well). I don't get it, for people who claim to be super-rational, and only believing in "evidence", some of you atheists are a strangely illogical bunch. And then when you say "Err...but wait, did you actually think this through - what about X?", they start throwing around labels like BIGOT, BIGOT!!!! NYAH NYAH!!! Ok, I'll try and put in in HN tl'dr terms =). Man + Woman = Procreation That is a fact of life (literally, the fact of life) - human's engage in sexual reproduction. For most of recorded human civilisation, we've had marriages - to try and foster the family unit, and engage in aforesaid procreation. Now, in modern times, we've had an upsurge in homosexual relationships - some people decide to have sexual partnerships with same-gendered people. Now, this can't by definition by procreative - which for most of recorded history was the point of marriage and families. So some parts of society want them to come up with a new term to describe this relationship, which is sexual in nature, but not about families or procreation. However, the other group say that because their relationships are sexual in nature, and they still like the concept of kids, they should still use the same label.

scarmig 13y ago

Not overblowing at all. Marriage is a human right. Since you're in such an affected high dudgeon over apartheid [1], here's a question for you: was the ban on interracial marriage something anti-apartheid activists blew off as just a jolly good time that's not at all oppressive, or did they consider it part and parcel of an oppressive system? [1] An aside: Do you know anything at all about apartheid? Did you actually protest against it? Do you you know about the deep links between the LGBT-rights movement and anti-apartheid movement, which was a factor that led to South Africa's being the only constitution in Africa, and one of the first in the world, to give formal equal rights to the LGBT community and subsequently legalize gay marriage?

victorhooi 13y ago
Well, your point is actually a logical inequality - apartheid was against the idea of interracial relationships, married or not. It's not exactly like these interracial couples were offered a "union" which conferred the same rights, but don't call it a marriage. But even if they were, it's still not close to the current battle over gay "marriage". For most of recorded human history, the concept of marriage was very much tied to the idea of family. For example, Susan Treggiari, a professor of Roman history writes "Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her". Homosexual relationships cannot by definition create a family - they are not a procreative relationship. I'm not saying they're wrong because of this - this is simply a biological fact. This is what a lot of gay marriage activists seem to miss - it's not opposition to the idea of them together. If they want to be together, they will be together. It's simply that they wish to come along and redefine an existing word, to fit a new definition of what a family is. Perhaps as a society, we will agree - and we will allow "marriage" between any two humans, and gender will become irrelevant. However, to simply come along and assume, oh, a man and woman get it, so a man and man should get it automatically is either being intentionally blind, or very presumptuous. A man and woman family is different to one composed of a man and a man - not because one is more valuable or not valuable - but simply because of their roles. It's like saying, oh, a woman gets pregnant, so she must be more valuable than the man in a marriage. Well no, they are different - they play different parts, and we call them different things.
- scarmig 13y ago
  So it comes down to "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." You just recite a long litany of naturalistic fallacies and claims that marriage is X because marriage is X. Yeah, there's a reason people think people who support straight marriage while opposing gay marriage are homophobic bigots.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Dude, it's biology....sigh. (And probably anthropology thrown in there as well). I don't get it, for people who claim to be super-rational, and only believing in "evidence", some of you atheists are a strangely illogical bunch. And then when you say "Err...but wait, did you actually think this through - what about X?", they start throwing around labels like BIGOT, BIGOT!!!! NYAH NYAH!!! Ok, I'll try and put in in HN tl'dr terms =). Man + Woman = Procreation That is a fact of life (literally, the fact of life) - human's engage in sexual reproduction. For most of recorded human civilisation, we've had marriages - to try and foster the family unit, and engage in aforesaid procreation. Now, in modern times, we've had an upsurge in homosexual relationships - some people decide to have sexual partnerships with same-gendered people. Now, this can't by definition by procreative - which for most of recorded history was the point of marriage and families. So some parts of society want them to come up with a new term to describe this relationship, which is sexual in nature, but not about families or procreation. However, the other group say that because their relationships are sexual in nature, and they still like the concept of kids, they should still use the same label.