Quote: (05-14-2012 06:15 PM)naswanji Wrote:
The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.
You are making exactly the same arguments which have been already made in the courts by the various opponents of the gay marriage court cases. All those arguments were rejected as either not supported by the evidence, or not carrying the legitimate governmental purpose. It amazes me that none of you guys actually read the court rulings, since you repeat the same already rebuffed arguments.
Quote:Quote:
Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).
The bold quoted portion is a major misunderstanding at best, as this is definitely NOT the case right now in the US. Again, it's a pity you guys do not read the rulings of the U.S. Courts as this point was also addressed.
Quote:Quote:
The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys.
Indeed. Gays want to stop the practice of being treated of second class citizens - same as desegregation was really an aim to change the society to stop treating the blacks as the second class citizens. Note that there was no law which stated "blacks must be treated as second class citizens", same as there is no law which states "homosexual relationships are not as worthy as straight relationships", and therefore a direct attack on this discrimination is not possible. This is why the anti-discrimination efforts have to focus on repealing the discriminating laws and provisions.
Basically your whole post could be summarized in one word: the traditions of the society do not favor gay marriage legalization. However as the multiple U.S. Courts have said, traditions or moral beliefs alone, no matter how deep and convincing, cannot be a ground for legalization. You need to prove with the evidence that the legalization of gay marriage would bring some measurable harm besides just hurting some feelings. And this is something no one was able to prove so far.
Now, will some part of society reject the homosexual marriage even if it is accepted by the government? Sure they would - as I said above, some people still do not accept blacks as equal despite the fifty or so years of desegregation. However the majority would accept it, and this is the ultimate goal.