So, basically, what you are saying is that anti-same-sex marriage mentality is the result of being socialized in a system which has, since its inception, been against same-sex marriages due to their religious convictions. Also, because its so ingrained in our culture we never really considered that it may be inappropriate.
Are you saying that, currently, the institution of marriage is merely an institution of prejudice? If not, I think merely pointing to prejudices when trying to determine purposes, or whether something is right or wrong, is entirely irrelevant. Otherwise, it may be partially relevant.
And, then, it's a failed institution because so many people have recognized that it is prejudicial, and it hasn't changed to fit our modern conceptions?
When you say things like, "OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NORM HAS CHANGED," you mean you. Not christians, or other anti-gay marriage people -- even though it may have changed, just not in the same way. i would continue to say that there is still a lot of people, maybe a majority of them, against gay marriage, but that just goes down the route of ad populum and squables about the future...
Do you think that people are against same-sex marriage ONLY for religious reasons, including the founders of our country? Are all the people who are against same-sex marriages christian? Don't they sometimes give social and material reasons why they are against it, as well, rather than just merely prejudice and religion?
When I asked for purpose I meant more like, what purpose does marriage serve for the state? Or a religious institution? or just society period? not necessarily what purpose marriage serves for the individual.
Quote:
|
My ultimate point is that denying gays the ability to formalize their union is a matter of denying human and civil rights.
|
How? Why should gays be allowed to get married? Why shouldn't people be able to marry dogs, or adolescents? Why no polygamy (a lot of this stuff could be said to have the same type of religious origin as anti-samesex folk)? No rights are ultimately being denied the homosexual in particular, they aren't restricted from getting married, just from getting married whoever or however they want.
I think adolescents is a particularly interesting topic, because there are so many arguments going about whether or not they have the ability to rationally consent to things like patient assisted suicide. So, if a 14 year old can consent to patient assisted suicide, why not marriage with a 43 year old sex offender?
but that is an aside: what about marriage is a human or civil right which should be oriented towards homosexuals and not just heterosexuals?
another good question is what about marriage is a human or civil right which should be oriented towards only heterosexuals ;o
Quote:
|
Personal convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized within a personal (not public) manner
|
Aren't homosexuals basically saying that their convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized in a public manner?
I guess I should have phrased my question differently:
What is the purpose of marriage: what is the function of marriage in society? How do gays fulfill this function or purpose?
Quote:
|
What matters is that as long as the government is involved there needs to be that separation of church and state.
|
Even if there was a complete separation of church and state, its still possible that marriage could be between a man and a woman only. There is nothing about that which is explicitly religious.
Hybrid Mode
