Gay-marriage controversy = Stunt? Conspiracy?

Post Reply New Topic

As I mentioned in my previous post, 'marriage' is principally a means of legitimating the transmission of property rights across generations.

You got it there, when you meantioned that peasants were not formally married; they had nothing of value to transmit to their heirs.

What I find galling in all this is that a comparatively privileged layer of middle class homosexual-rights activists are agitating over something that secures their property rights, where rightfully, as one-time political exiles, they should be campaigning for the abolition of the very framework that makes inheritance, cumulative powers of oppression and coercion through transmissible property rights and the ability to create the ideological framework that gave rise to the formalised and ideological framework that legitimates condemnation of homosexuality.

The comfort and privilege afforded to the 'upper echelon' layer of homosexuals does nothing for those further down the scale, save to act as a taunt and a kick in the teeth to those who are measured against this impossible ideal for 'failing' to measure up.

This is the Great Failing of all these publicity stunts and gimmicks that surround 'identity politics', a handful of embourgeoisified members of assorted minorities get to the top of the tree, and then become tools with which to brow-beat the less fortunate. And it is purely a question of luck. Apparent 'successes' from whatever minority are frequently appropriated (with varying degrees of collusive duplicity, it has to be admitted), but part of the admission fee is that they allow themselves to be used as Tools to rub everyone else's noses in the alleged 'shortcomings' of their's, which led to their never 'making the grade'.

I oppose Gay Marraige, not because I have antiquated quasi-moralistic views about homosexuality per se, but rather because I see it as being yet another instrument that is used to cement, enable and legitimate unjust proerty laws that concentrate more and more wealth into the hands of a few, while taunting an overwhelming majority that they are 'failures' for faiiling to have either cheated and shimmied their way on, or merely lucked in by pure fluke, coincidence or other utterly unguessable mechanism.

So since you disagree with private property gay people should not get marred, in other words, my life has to be ruined for your social/socialism agenda?

And BTW skipper, its a lot more than property rights.

You ought to have the fun of trying to visit your partner in the hopital and no one will tell you where they are becuse you are "not related"

It is not private property in and of itself that I disagree with; it is the inheritance mechanism that perpetuates poverty down the generations.

WAht about wanting to leave you house to your spouse on your demise, this is almost impossible with a gay couple, the relatives anc usually get it stopped up to and including breaking the will.


All ths does is punsh people of moderate means, the people who can afford good lawyers have no such problems....

what i would like to know is the agenda behind the biblical posturing, which i do not believe for one minute. to elucidate, i really can't believe that governments around the world are all raving christians fundamentalists. so what is their excuse for not sanctioning gay marriage?

i've never heard any reasonable arguments.

Last edited by vetivert on 29 Sep 2005, 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

People are People

All deserve the same RIGHTS

Its SAD THAT IT REALLY NOT THAT WAY

I just don't how it can matter to you. Who cares, They are HAPPY where they are.
Just change a couple words around or their definiton.
Does it affect you personally?
what if intransitive means controversial, would people argue against it?

More and more goverments ARE accepting it now, and the trend is not slowing, I belive Spain went last, the US being a a sad, but temporary, exeption. Even if BUSHCO inc. Manages to shoehorn it into the constitution it won't be forever.

We did it with the 18th amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth ... nstitution

And we will do it to however Bush manages to pervert the constitution.

Notice that prohabition was the only other constitutional amendment to LIMIT The freedoms of citizens? Now he wants another one, I expect it will work as well..

Well, I’m not a Christian fundamentalist, and I oppose gay marriage.

Marriage is not a “right”. It is an institution: an institution that’s served our society for centuries as the best way for bringing up children.
(Sorry if I sound like Melanie Phillips here. I read her columns often.)

If gay couples are concerned about pension rights and all that, then the state should introduce some other legislation to recognize gay partnerships (and possibly other sorts of co-habiting relationships, e.g., a situation where someone looks after a disabled brother or sister).
The state could easily do this and spare us the pretence that “gay marriage” is just the same as heterosexual marriage.

There is much evidence to suggest that, on average, children fare best when they are raised by their natural parents, and when these parents are married (not surprisingly).
Of course, many children will need to be adopted. It will then be best for the child if they can be adopted by a married couple rather than an unmarried (cohabiting) couple. This is of course because unmarried cohabiting couples are less stable – it’s so much easier for them to separate when they’ve made no legal commitment to each other.
There might be exceptional circumstances where a child will need to be raised by a single parent, e.g., they might have suffered sexual abuse by a man, and therefore need to be raised by a single adoptive mother.

So, the only argument that people can really have for “gay marriage” is granting gay couples the right to adopt. And it’s this issue that seals it for me.
I can’t conceive of any situation where it would be in the child’s interests to be raised by a gay couple rather than a heterosexual couple. And a lot of people seem to spend too much time worrying about the “rights” of gay adults rather than the needs of children.

A person might not have any choice over their sexuality, but they do have a choice over whether they enter into a gay relationship or not. And a gay relationship is one that by definition is incapable of producing children. “Gay marriage” just undermines the meaning of marriage itself. If marriage is going to be redefined so that it’s just a matter of sexual preference, then why don’t we extend marriage to include threesomes?
(Hang on. I believe such arrangements are legal in some parts of the world.)

Does a gay couple tell their adopted child early on that the child is not theirs, or do they wait till the child learns where babies come from?
What’s a child going to think being brought up wondering why they’re the only kid in their whole school with two dudes for parents?

To put it bluntly, I’m glad I wasn’t adopted by a gay couple. I can’t imagine the crap I would have had to put up with in the playground. Having A.S. is enough, thanks!

By the way, having Asperger’s Syndrome impacts adversely on my ability to have any sort of relationship at all. But I don’t believe I should be granted special adoptive rights because of it.

They already did earlier this week, accross the UK. It's called "Civil Partnerships".

This does not seem likely in the United States; at least while the Republicans are in power.