Also, this may be objective but I see majority (well, the most vocal appears is what appears as the majority) of sexually different groups that aren't heterosexuals do not have equality on their agenda, more some form of revenge at previous generations or those that do not give them approval. Admittedly we do not yet have widespread discrimination against heterosexuals by gays but I can see the ideology brewing. It is just as bad as white supremacy, attention seeking, trying to force what you do in the bedroom onto others.
Most of the people against gay marriage (well, over here anyway) seem to be making the argument that children should have a male and female guardian and therefore no marriage for gay people. Which is ridiculous for a variety of reasons.
It's also not just a title. Since human beings are irrational, marriage therefore is considered highly important and therefore comes with property rights, legitimacy of children and family name, visitation rights in hospitals/prisons/etc, and a slew of other privileges and rights given to couples upon completion of rites.
I completely agree with your premise (minus the aside about feminism), but I just want to clarify something a tad here - the benefits on married couples are not because of irrational emphasis on marriage. They began as incentives to get people to marry and raise children together, and remain often as easy ways to determine who's "family" and who's not, from a legal perspective. I can't say for certain that none of it is based in an emphasis on family without reason, but at least the vast majority has plenty of rational thought behind it.
I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.
Maybe not marriage, but at least the current legal concept of it.I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.
Who would be responsible for it then?I would like to add that I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all.
The 'no' part of my original position comes from the fact that I have some fundamental disagreements with certain individuals who are supportive of gay marriage. I simply cannot support them or their ideas, so if you want a black and white,yes or no answer I would rather say no than lump myself in with portions of LGBT advocates that I strongly disagree with. And as I said before I'm certainly not going to say yes to something if it has nothing to do with me.
This is a very self-centred view of the world, I know. .
I've been doing some reflection on this subject and to clarify my position: I don't support gay marriage. As a straight person I have no vested interest in this matter. As a matter of principle if it doesn't affect me at all why should I have the power to decide on an outcome for other people? Let the concerned parties decide for themselves. If it was possible I would change my voting position to "abstain" and I feel that's a perfectly acceptable position for any straight person to take without being branded as homophobic (admittedly some of my views ARE homophobic but I'm attempting to defend a principle that is greater than myself).
The 'no' part of my original position comes from the fact that I have some fundamental disagreements with certain individuals who are supportive of gay marriage. I simply cannot support them or their ideas, so if you want a black and white,yes or no answer I would rather say no than lump myself in with portions of LGBT advocates that I strongly disagree with. And as I said before I'm certainly not going to say yes to something if it has nothing to do with me.
This is a very self-centred view of the world, I know.
I also agree with twocows that the construct of marriage in itself is a debatable point and in my opinion relationships deserve very little recognition, certainly not to the extent that marriage gets.
I've been doing some reflection on this subject and to clarify my position: I don't support gay marriage. As a straight person I have no vested interest in this matter. As a matter of principle if it doesn't affect me at all why should I have the power to decide on an outcome for other people? Let the concerned parties decide for themselves. If it was possible I would change my voting position to "abstain" and I feel that's a perfectly acceptable position for any straight person to take without being branded as homophobic (admittedly some of my views ARE homophobic but I'm attempting to defend a principle that is greater than myself).