starcraft said:
I got rid of the last two paragraphs. They were based once again on your assertion that my view is bigoted, yours is not, and that this bares any relation to the race debate, which again is simply a leftist association falsely generated in an attempt to frame the debate. So....bolded one. Do you not realise what you're doing? Because of YOUR own SUBJECTIVE views, you wish to change marriage from something it has been for millenia, devaluing it for billions of people around the world. Bolded two. It has already been established that homosexuals (under the model I am discussing, which exists in some countries) have the same rights as heterosexuals do. You can argue that they want more, but on paper their rights are completely equivelant. Bolded three. I thought this last line was extremely interesting. Are you suggesting that too feel normal- that for a homosexual person to feel normal- they must see themselves as being accepted into an inherently heterosexual institution? There are a great many things that would be a good thing for the gay community, ninty per cent of which I support. But the one you're suggesting is one you fight for simply to score some tokenistic victory over the religious right. And as someone who values marriage as it stands, along with the views of the vast majority of human beings on this earth, I don't believe you're political pointscoring is worth giving up something that is extremely important to a whole lot more people, when there is no practical advantage to be gained for homosexuals. |
When did I say my view wasn't bigoted? I said I was bigotted against anti-gay-marriage people. You have to draw the bigot line somewhere, and I draw it at the actual bigots, not the bigots of the bigots.
Why do you choose to draw the line at me, the bigot of the bigot, instead of drawing the line at those who actually want to inhibit homosexuals rights? I just want things to be fair, but for some reason you think marriage being traditional is better than it being fair. I don't see how that's logical.
Yes, my views are subjective too. But I think my views are better, since they're not based in keeping an injustice around. My views are based in trying to rid us of that injustice, trying to please gay people by giving them 100% equality, not 99% equality by calling their marriages something else. Your views are trying to keep traditional marriage around just to please people who think gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, how can you honestly thing that's a more noble goal then bring about equal rights?
You say on paper their rights are equivilant? You obviously wrote it down wrong then. Heterosexuals can marry anyone they're attracted to, bisexuals and homosexuals can not. I want that right, damn it.
MARRIAGE IS NOT INHERENTLY HETEROSEXUAL. There's been many cultures that allowed gay marriage. There's native tribes today that allow gay marriage. Why should we follow the example of the intolerant societies that disallowed gay marriage, instead of the more open societies that allowed it? There's no logic in that. It's simply ignorant.
We deserve to be able to get married to someone we're attracted to, it doesn't matter what you think marriage is, all that matters is what marriage should be. It should be between and two consenting adults, there's no reason it should only be between a man and a woman, other than silly old traditions. If traditions suck there's no reason to keep them around.
I don't believe your 'marriage is sacred' complex is worth giving up something that is extremely important to a whole lot of gay people, when there is no disadvantage to be gained for straight people.
