Point still stands that I see no reason to consider these benefits anything more than trivial.
The thing is, gay people not being able to get a piece of paper is a lesser problem than bullying, restrictions against adoption, etc. It's definitely a lesser problem. But I don't see how this means that it doesn't matter
at all. Just because we can't prove to a satisfactory degree that the marriage distinction does matter, doesn't mean that we've confirmed it doesn't matter.
And I still feel like the reason marriage matters
is right in front of our face - why would people fight so hard over the sanctity of marriage, to protect their culture from homosexuality, if it wasn't valuable for gay people to satisfy this internalized culture of marriage-sanctity? It's not even particularly a matter of man-handling the culture of society or trying to force tolerance on people in some kind of tyrannical liberal manner, but having at least the governments that observe legal marriage certificates participate in this cultural discourse that is already partially there. And I don't think making marriage a part of government is a radical progressive idea. Separating marriage from government, in my mind, would be the new, unusual idea.
Also, I'm not really familiar with the dangers of this more sinister fake progressivism, mainly because I don't see the slope in which giving marriage to gay couples results in couples that aren't married campaigning to get the same benefits. That's what a marriage, in the legal sense, is for, and the example is completely alien to me.
Well it's as much a perception thing as much as anything else, especially in the U.K. As I said earlier in the thread, the gay marriage issue is as much about a man picking a fight and trying to wrestle internal control back to his side of a political party than it is about gay marriage. When a man campaigns for a minor change more passionately than he does for the need to save and restore our economy, it baffles me. Freedom of speech, drug legislation, the NHS. These things matter. Gay people no longer being civil partners but being married couples doesn't.
The gay marriage thing is also worth mentioning in another way, more tied to America, but applicable here too. It stems from the way in which gay marriage is used as a stick with which to beat others and further an agenda which moves much beyond gay marriage.
When we hear advocates of gay marriage talking, the buzzword is "fairness", or something similar to that. This same shtick (not a typo) is then used to justify other policies which have little to nothing to do with gay rights. Tax rises? It's about "fairness". More government? We must insure "fairness". Attempts to shut down freedom of speech? It's "unfair" to demonise certain groups for having vile opinions. It's part of an "us and them" mentality which is used by the modern left to prevent any kind of worthwhile debate. Hence why an irrelevant issue like gay marriage is presented as some kind of major step forward for civil rights. Those who oppose it are painted as bigots. Fast forward to a debate on the economy. Said "bigot" discusses sensible economic proposals, but their "bigoted" views on something like gay marriage are held against them and used as a stick in order to ignore their economic points. Gay marriage is a perfect embodiment of how minor issues are used to divert from other failures.
I'm pro gay-marriage, but I don't kid myself it's a big issue. Meanwhile, I resent the way that my opinion is used as a template for further "progressiveness".
Fair point, but like I said, I feel like this is a matter of personal taste, and don't really see the point of throwing out the gay marriage issue because you don't support the side that supports it. In addition, I actually really agree with you on the problem of throwing the idea of bigotry around and demonizing people for their motives and beliefs.
BTW, just so we're clear. What I'm replying to here is a man who criticises my opinions regularly when he has condoned mass murder on this very forum. Look at my sig for further details. A strange kind of moralist.
Dude, I'
m sorry. But you either don't get it or don't want to. I said that about Gadhaffi because I didn't want Libya to be destablized, it's citizens to be in danger, and become vulnerable to al Qaeda...not because I somehow supported Gadhaffi himself. Even if my logic didn't work out, the fact is I was not calling for mass murder.
I very rarely stick to my guns in a debate on foreign matters anyway, which is why I said that I was 'deluded'. The fact is I'm a great big pacifist and it makes me sick to imagine anyone being killed, even a tyrant.