RECENTLY ON TOL:
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
You said "I see no inherent downside to allowing gay people the same legal rights as everybody else. "
Indeed, and I agree. But this touches an issue that is seen in many attemtpts to change the definition of marriage. In many cases, especially California, a civil union concept that allows homosexuals (and others) equivalent legal rights to marriage is rejected as inadequate, because "it is not marriage." This is what I object to, the demand to redefine marriage to include practices that are in essential opposition to what marriage is. Polyamorists want their changes made, homosexuals want their changes made. Both are demanding that the Western definition of marriage be redefined to suit their lifestyle tastes. This is often followed, especially by the homosexual lobby and their sympathizers, with snarky denigrations of how lousy heterosexual marriage is, "so why keep the concept intact?"
I object to the rejection of legal rights equivalents of marriage and insistence on a redefinition of marriage (which must include the term "marriage") to suit the tastes of various sexual behavior variants. I believe that in such cases what they are seeking is a validation of themselves and their sexual behavior by assailing and redefining the useful and needed cultural/legal institution of marriage.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context