Obama wins - and so do the bigots

[cottmann]

Obama has won but so have the bigots as constitutional bans on same-sex marriages look like passing in every state which held a referendum on the issue. Respect for human rights - NIMBY in the USA!

Yes. A note for regret among the euphoria. I guess it just hasn't been argued well enough.

[Bob]

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. That's what the vast majority of people throughout history in almost every nation have thought and recognized. I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.
Woe is us.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. That's what the vast majority of people throughout history in almost every nation have thought and recognized. I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.
Woe is us.

thousands of years ? I thought they just shacked up with each other until religion stuck it's nose into the whole business.

[Marsilius]

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation.

Hence heterosexual couples intending not to have any children - or unable to do so - should not be allowed to marry?

[TrongpaiExpat]

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation.

There were thousands of years and cultural history institutionalizing slavery too yet that all changed. Time for a change.

I have met several gay men that have expressed their view that gays should not be allowed to marry. Their argument seems based on emotion (religion) rather than logic. The same arguments that once made biracial marriage a crime are used in gay marriage.

Personally, I think civil unions is the way to go and avoid all the emotional and religious baggage of the term marriage. A simple civil legal association, nothing more.

[Brad the Impala]

suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.

When you die in the UK, you can leave your assets to your spouse free of tax. When homosexuals died, assets left to their partners, over a certain sum, were taxed. Worth moaning about? It was. The law was changed, and you can now leave your assets to your same sex Civil Partner free of tax. That's one example of the progress that has been made. Some will mock with menstruating jibes, but all can share the benefits.

[bao-bao]

I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate. Woe is us.

Which (I'm sure) reminds more than just me of Stan/Loretta's predicament in Python's "Life of Brian":

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

I have met several gay men that have expressed their view that gays should not be allowed to marry. Their argument seems based on emotion (religion) rather than logic.

Equally, the argument that "marriage" is the only acceptable term, and that Civil Union / Civil Partnership is unacceptable seems not only to be based purely on emotion but to be extremely short-sighted (even, dare I say it, bigoted); had such alternative terms been used it is at least possible that they may have been acceptable to homo and heterosexuals alike.

The same arguments that once made biracial marriage a crime are used in gay marriage.

I hardly think so; those arguments were obviously based on racial, not physical/biological differences, and were resolved when it was decided (at least in theory) that all races/colours were essentially the same. The arguments differentiating between the sexes are based on clearly visible (in most cases) and undeniable differences. Unless you are saying that there are no such differences, or that such differences are so minor that there is no need for separate toilets, separate athletic events (currently horse riding is the only "mixed" event in the Olympics), etc, etc, your argument is fatally flawed.

So somebody that disagrees is a bigot? Hardly, at least in my view.

Thousands of years of cultural history and practice throughout the world have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. That's what the vast majority of people throughout history in almost every nation have thought and recognized. I don't want to be the same as "them" and I suppose I ought to start whining that I and my male partner are being discriminated against because we poor dears can't have babies and can't even menstruate.
Woe is us.

I am with you Bob, all the way.

Which (I'm sure) reminds more than just me of Stan/Loretta's predicament in Python's "Life of Brian":

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: Where's the fetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

Thanks for the above bao-bao, it gave me a bloody good laugh looking back and remembering that part of the movie. For those of you that are unfamiliar with the movie The Life of Brian, or the Stan/Loretta's predicament part of it, you can check it out below.


Cheers,



George.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c[/youtube]