It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Gay marriage seems to me to be a natural corollary to an attack on traditional family constructs, i.e. a husband, wife, and children. I see a society which abandons the idea of attributing importance to particular differences i.e in sex, will in due time go fully in the direction of Plato's republic, or more probably, Huxleys Brave New World, and abandon ideas like family "units", which could be interpreted as "bigoted" and a type of discrimination between oneself and ones own, and other people.
Because yin/yang classifications are expressing the qualities of things in relation to each other, then what counts as yin and yang will vary according to the context. What counts as yin depends on what it is being compared with, and under what circumstances. For example, ice is yin in relation to rock, but yang in relation to water. Similarly a man is yang in relation to woman, but may be yin in relation to another man. This is often confusing to people who insist in thinking of yin and yang as irreducible, dualistic opposites.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
In any case, this is a social issue so I'll stick to the social implications of this prejudice. It is justified - INTELLECTUALLY - for someone, such as myself, for example, to find something awry in a society which advocates and pushes to the degree that this society is pushing it, for the full integration of gays into society as 'equals' in the partnership of marriage.
because a departure from such an order might lead to the eventual stagnation and eventual disintegration of values which western society has held dear for thousands of years.
In short, this fanaticism - and it is complete and total fanaticism to be as hung up as people are about, amidst a failing economy, the possibility of a serious war in Iran, etc - for this to be one of the single biggest concerns in our modern era. And it serves to undermine true liberty, which is a persons right to oppose something he has not only a basic right to oppose, but intellectual justification as well (if its worded in a philosophical manner, as I just did; but most people who oppose gay marriage tacitly recognize a principle of an ideal male-female complementarity).
I think it's pretty simple. No matter how you would like to rationalize the opposition to gays and lesbians getting married - religious, metaphysical, whatever - once you restrict them from being able to marry because YOU don't agree with it, you effectively have trampled on their rights to life (with their chosen partner), liberty (to be with and enter into a contract with whomever they chose) and their pursuit of happiness (with the partner they do choose).
And just to use a specific example, a chritians rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not effected because a secular law allows something their religion does not. Am I trampling on religionists rights when I eat shellfish, shave or wear clothes made of multiple types of fiber?
For example, ice is yin in relation to rock, but yang in relation to water. Similarly a man is yang in relation to woman, but may be yin in relation to another man. This is often confusing to people who insist in thinking of yin and yang as irreducible, dualistic opposites.
Homosexuality and various gender identities were a norm in many pre-colonial cultures. To say that gender constructions are written in stone, or were ever written in stone is not correct.
Biblically forms of marriage vary widely between polygamy and concubinage and celibacy, and 1 Corinthians 7: 29 advises even married men to be celibate: "It remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none".
Yet virtually nobody today preaches or follows that.
My thoughts are just, at what point does it become fanatical on both sides?
heterosexist
It's just that people who do oppose gay marriage and aren't homophobic have a really hard time rationalizing that view, but ultimately that's their world-view, and it doesn't need to be consistent or moral.
In fact there are some gay people who don't agree with gay marriage.
Originally posted by DarkKnight76
And just to use a specific example, a chritians rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not effected because a secular law allows something their religion does not. Am I trampling on religionists rights when I eat shellfish, shave or wear clothes made of multiple types of fiber?
For example, when ACT UP protested at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1989, I think most people would have eventually gotten over it had they not entered the church to disrupt the mass. One person even desecrated a communion wafer. Another, more recent example, was when Bash Back disrupted services at Mount Hope Church in Michigan in 2008. While many could get over the protesting outside the church, and even uphold their right to do so without agreeing with them, they went further by disrupting the Sunday service, pulling fire alarms, storming the pulpit, etcetera.