DiscussionMarriage equality was a mistake

submitted by justagaydude123 from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What is the correlation between same sex marriage and gender ideology? (Not a rhetoric question. Genuinely wanna know)

In my country same sex marriage became lawful way before gender ideology was this circus it is now. And, at least in my country, marriage equality is a sex based right, if anything that goes against gender ideology. And marriage equality (in my country) came with other homosexual rights, such as criminalization of medical and religious conversion therapy, and workplace discrimination. Those are very important laws for lesbians and gays. Also, in my country marriage give people some rights such as adoption (at least back then only married people could adopt, idk if that changed now). And taxe benefits for married people who have children. Visa benefits. These rights are just the ones that popped in my mind now, I’m sure there’s more. Those are civil rights, they’re based on nationality, all my countrywomen/men have, why should it be denied to me simply because I’m a lesbian? If I have the same duties as my countrywomen I want the same rights as my countrywomen.

I think we should not mistake civil rights with woke laws I.e. criminalization of “misgendering”. They’re not comparable. The first are serious laws the second is western bullshitry.

Just one year ago a friend of mine got married to her now french wife, they live here now. And she only got a resident visa to her wife because their marriage is recognized by law. You may think your civil rights are useless but that’s just until you need it. I very much want to merry one day, and since I have to pay taxes like a motherfucker anyways, I want all my rights.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Marriage provides couples with a lot of social and legal rights and protections. Sure, a civil partnership could do that, if it explicitly comes with all of these legal protections, but a lot of people do not know what a civil partnership is, or don’t see it as a real union, whereas everybody understands what marriage is.

I can understand someone opposing the government legalising same sex marriage if this person sees marriage as a religious institution and believes that the government should not be involved in it. But as long as the government is involved and offers civil marriage, then yes, there’s no reason why gay marriage cannot be legalised in a country unless most people in that country oppose it. In fact, if you have to get married in order to avail of the rights and protections married couples enjoy, then gay marriage should be legalised.

Now, you can argue that the correlation with gay marriage and gender ideology is present because in order to legalise gay marriage you’d have to change the definition of marriage. For thousands of years marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. In fact, before the 1970s this was just common sense in most countries. Many gay marriage opponents fear that if you redefine marriage to allow same sex marriages, it could open the flood gates to idiots wanting to redefine what a man is or what a woman is. Of course, men and women are natural beings, whereas marriage is an artificial institution and a tool. Plus, we cross bridges when we get to them. You can still allow same sex marriage and also define men as males and women as females.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My thoughts exactly. Allowing same-sex marriage also facilitated LGB to form more stable family and social units. It fosters community.

What’s the difference between “you can get married, just to a member of the opposite sex like everyone else” and “trans people can play sports, just with their biological sex like everyone else?” I would say (1) the purpose of the institution and (2) whether or not there’s a conflict of rights to be reconciled.

For the first point, the question is whether or not same-sex marriage is consistent with the purpose of civil marriage in a modern society. You can debate what kinds of partnerships the state should recognize, why, and how. And we did.

For the second point, allowing same sex marriage doesn’t affect anyone else’s marriage or the rights and privileges they get from their marriages. There’s no conflict of rights other than in contexts involving alleged conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. But we’re not talking about requiring religious institutions to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. At least I’m not.

In contrast the gender identity movement mostly has nothing to do with civil rights or any kind of right as we ordinarily think of it. Rather, it’s a system of belief that demands constant demonstrations of belief and loyalty and seeks to redefine even the most fundamental aspects of other human beings, their relationships, and their social interactions even when a trans person isn’t involved. This inherently implicates several conflicts of rights and interests, but proponents refuse to recognize the interests and rights of others at stake. And therefore they assume (project) any attempt by another group or individual to defend an existing right as inherently motivated by bigotry.

For same sex rights, I do regret lazy tactics, advocacy, and sloganeering but I did participate in actual debate in which neither I nor my opponents sought to prevent the other from being able to have a job, get an education, or participate in society.

I think we failed to see how trendy we would become to the point of straight people trying to become and replace us.