≡
home.KaiRo.at
Bio
weBlog
[arts corner]
[science corner]
Slides
Fotogalerien
Kontakt
Suche
>> www.KaiRo.at
Neuer Kommentar
Name:
E-Mail:
Homepage:
Ort:
JavaScript support is required for this form to work.
Berechne:
83 plus 3 ergibt
Titel:
Beitragstext:
[quote="ancestor"]@Al Billings Those opinions were [i]not[/i] homophobic, that is the point. Gerv wasn't denying homosexual their civil or human rights. We must distinguish marriage as a [i]legal institution[/i] providing couples with various rights and privileges, from marriage as a [i]cultural construct[/i] and a [i]symbolic ritual[/i]. The UK already has the former available to gay couples - it's called civil partnership. As far as I can see, Gerv isn't opposing it at all; he just says its name is orthogonal to the issue of equality and it doesn't have to be called marriage. And he is right, of course. It doesn't matter from the civil rights standpoint if the UK has separate institutions for gay and straight couples, as long as they are functionally equivalent. Equality doesn't have to mean sameness. Therefore, we should look at marriage as nothing else than a [i]cultural and/or religious ritual[/i]. How we define it is purely a matter of tradition, with no bearing on equality or civil rights. It is an open question and I can sympathize with arguments from both sides. Historically, the custom of marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman - that's just what it is, period. Interestingly, it isn't necessarily a product of historical discrimination of homosexuals, as even in societies where homosexuality was completely accepted, like ancient Rome, marriage was exclusive to heterosexual couples. Now, we may of course choose to redefine the term and make it more general. However, by doing so we would lose some of its connotations, which involve celebrating the unique relationship between a man and a woman, as well as procreation. I understand why many people are attached to this symbolism. Opposing the change is an intellectually defensible position which can be held by a perfectly tolerant person, religious or not. I think it is deeply unfair to call such people homophobic. I find it disappointing to see so many smart people in the community having such a black-and-white take on what's an extremely nuanced topic, basically browbeating anyone who doesn't share their view by lumping them in as bigots. So yeah, I agree with KaiRo that many left-wingers have perfected the paradoxical art of acting intolerant under the pretense of defending tolerance.[/quote]
Ich akzeptiere und befolge
die Regeln von Home of KaiRo
.
In diesem Eintrag werden
Emoji
,
bbCode
und
manche HTML-Codes
unterstützt.