Even the gays can't stand the wokeness, interesting reddit thread
(www.reddit.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
When 'gay marriage' became a thing, a gay friend told me it wasn't even a gay issue at the time. They had no marriage movement or even desire to be married for the majority's part, and was influenced from 'outside' sources. His words.
They already had it in function, I guess. I can see both sides of the gay marriage argument though.
I just believe that at this point from a legal perspective they should have the same right to marriage that anyone else has, even though marriage used to be a spiritual bonding provided through religion.
It can still be both of these things for different people, and neither can negate the other. Perhaps the eye should be cast at the government for turning marriage into something with legal benefits / negatives, which was not what marriage was meant to be.
Civil unions have been around for a long time. The gay marriage issue was mostly about trying to force people into recognizing a spiritual bond via legislature. The very nature of marriage is a religious one and is quite literally forbidden in most of the religious doctrine. The adoption of marriage by the legal system does not remove the religious aspects of marriage. The homosexual's could have easily pressed for federal recognition of civil union without any debate or uproar. The very insistence of "marriage" was specifically chosen as inflammatory. I would have willingly given up the legal term married and been quite satisfied in all being categorized as civil unions. Marriages could be relegated to religious identification only and given the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as civil unions with the legal framework. This would have been a simple and equitable solution to disentangle religious doctrine from the legal system.
agreed
Marriage is now a contract between the man and the woman with the government being an interested party on her side.
Likely it was pushed hard by the wedding industry. They already rake in ridiculous amounts of money, why not hose the gays too?
This was already in place with civil unions. There are also living wills, wills, power of attorney. All of these are different ways to obtain the same rights and privileges of a married couple. In some areas of the country, Civil Unions were not obtainable within the area, but the legality of a Civil Union that was legally obtained was recognized. The simplest and least difficult solution was to federally mandate that Civil Unions were recognized universally. This would have precluded the acrimonious debate and nullified it. There would have been an extremely small minority that would have bothered to defend Civil Unions.
In the UK civil partnerships were opened to all couplings, but no, that wasnt good enough, it had to be called marriage and it had to be potentially conducted in a church before they were happy. And of course they still arent happy.
It was not the tax/inheritance benefits they were after (the tax benefits were lost long ago, and the inheritance can be arranged using a will) it was to mock the institution of marriage deliberately, as an act of vandalism.
To me it is as stupid as wheelchair users wanting to call ramps steps, because that is what able bodied people use, and why should they be any different?
Others opinions are patently false.
Got it.
What year are you speaking of?
The push for gay marriage is 20 years old now.
Things have changed due to rings in noses - as newly engineered 'needs'.
The point. The gay community promoting 'Gay marriage' (supported or not, allowed or not) is A RECENT TREND, not a tradition of any kind.
Correct. It's a FACT that the gay community was until recently, divided as to their OPINIONS on marriage among gays. Or more accurately, didn't really see it as a need.
This new 'need' is part of the push for a newly defined 'equity'.
My friend's opinion was at the time, the more predominant one. That opinion being not FOR or AGAINST the idea. Rather, that the idea was MOOT as gays typically had multiple partner scenarios. Typically. Your agreement isn't required. Your friends desire to marry doesn't change the FACT as stated.
it was NOT a gay talking point until recently.
My friend is over 60 and has been part of the community his whole life. He also is in an inter-racial relationship. I think he's in a position where he would know better than you or your younger newly 'woke' gay friend as to the historical accuracy.