Hi, Heneni.
If i were gay, i would feel like i wanted my own type of marriage that is not the same as heterosexual marriages.
I respectfully doubt so, Heneni. The only way I see for homosexuals to want their marriages to be different from heterosexuals ones is the obvious one. As far as social and legal recognition goes, I just don't believe they would rather be seen as different. Nor do I think they are, either.
Come to think of it, marriages are already quite varied as factual reality goes.
I would want to have my own identity and to celebrate that unique identity i would want my own type of 'marriage'.
I suppose that would be true in a very few cases. But only a very few. Most homosexuals and bisexuals probably see their sexuality as the private matter that it indeed is, and would rather not emphasize it in such a way.
(Anyone who knows better, please be free to correct me. It's just my guess, really).
I find it odd that the gay community isnt working harder to have civil unions changed in a way that they would approve of. Rather they are trying to take on the old traditional heterosexual marriage, and make that their own.
On a practical level, marriage is specifically entitled to many rights that civil unions aren't. It takes far less work to simply allow same sex marriages.
On a social level, available evidence suggest to me that there is no demand for that kind of different-yet-equally-respectable alternative to marriage. Not from anyone who would use such an alternative, anyway.
Its contradicting. While gay people advocate that their equal and yet unique in their sexual preferences, they are not trying hard enough to get their own unique marriage, but rather wants to take on the heterosexual marriage which in effect is NOT what they are.
I must disagree again. A same sex couple in a stable relationship is not necessarily any more contrasting with a married heterosexual couple now than the later would be from, say, a 1940s married couple. Mentalities and social roles changed
quite a lot since. I sincerely believe that marriage is very much indeed what many same sex couples have and want to be recognized.
So...whats up? The gay people are not hetereosexual, yet they want what has been identified with heterosexual union for eons.
For nearly all of that time marriage was identified with a female role of having kids and obeying her husband as well. That is left behind us now, and so must the notion that there is something in homosexuals that makes them somehow "unfit" for marriage.
When it comes down to it, the only real difference are the physical characteristics of the people involved; feelings and other attributes are pretty much indistinguishable, albeit also quite varied. I can see how some religious faiths would have trouble in recognizing marriages due to the way they physically interact, and I recognize their right to do so (althought it is still regrettable that they do), but there is no noteworthy pressure that they change their judgment about
religious marriages. It is the legal right, not the religious institution, that is in discussion.
Is this just about 'getting what we want' and if we dont 'heterosexual people are evil and discriminating'?
Sure, although you make it sound somewhat more malicious than it is.
People
should be allowed to get what they want, at least in such a case where (1) other people in equivalent situations are allowed already and (2) there is no reasonable argument not to extend such permission.
And yes, if heterosexual people (or, for that matter, ANY people) deny homosexuals marriage on the grounds that homosexuals shouldn't marry, then that is very much discrimination, don't you think?
It is not always evil, and probably rarely consciously evil. But the effects themselves are quite evil, since they hurt people's feelings and rights with no good reason.
