But marriage is not a religious institution. You don’t need to be a Christian. You don’t need to go to church. You don’t need to believe in any God.
I am a blatant atheist, and yet I am married. Meanwhile, many gay people are religious.
Just like you dont necessarily hate your cat even though you dont allow to go outside.
Sure you also don’t hate your children when you take their rights. You are superior to your pets and your children. Are you also superior to gays, women, trans, blacks?
I dont get your point. I’m talking about labels and how they relate to views on “rights”. You can think that certain groups have less rights than others based on your own belief system without being against those groups entirely. This happens all the time.
What is the purpose of giving benefits to married people over single people? If you are pro civil marriage then you are somehow anti-single?
When?
So far the only examples we have are children, pets, and black people on airplanes?
Can I have a religion that says black people shouldn’t be on airplanes?
I think if we just go through some examples we can get to the bottom of it.
The operative phrase is “privileges and responsibilities”. For example, the privilege of pooling resources for tax purposes and inheritance with a minimum of probate and tax fuss comes with a certain obligation to provide mutual support and care.
For people who are actually single, those particular privileges don’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense for the single person to bear that particular obligation.
When it comes to other non-traditional family arrangements (e.g. poly households), I personally wouldn’t be opposed to extending analogous privileges and responsibilities should they wish them. The trick would be in finding a wording that would be appropriate for the various possible family arrangements, and the political will to codify that…or to codify acceptance of contracts the parties involved customize to best fit their needs. (I read the complete works of Heinlein during my late teens…)
To be honest, in an ideal world, I’d prefer that government not be involved in people deciding whether to form households and to work out the arrangements that work best for themselves. However, practicalities prevent the world from being an ideal place.
It’s not my entire religion. All religiobs are about being kind. But there are also random bits about restricting the rights of various minorities.
I gave several examples in previous posts, especially with regards to trans rights. I wouldn’t label someone as anti trans for thinking they shouldn’t be allowed to do certain things. This is pretty reasonable, see the debate about trans people competing in college sports. Also allowing trans people to have gender reassignment surgery as minors. This is something that is highly debatable, and I wouldn’t at all label someone as anti-trans for being against it.
Trans rights are controversial right now, so I don’t think they make for very good examples.
What about miscegenation? Is it racist to say people of different races should not marry? I believe there’s some bible lines about that as well?
As I pointed out earlier, in 2008 Obama was in favor of expanding gay rights vis-a-vis marriage. He advocated repealing DOMA, which was a deeply anti-gay law. He did not support gay marriage because he, along with most straight people at the time, had the misconception that civil unions would be sufficient. So he was wrong about some things, but wanted to expand gay rights.
Vance, as well as people who advocate for overturning Obergefell, want to reduce gay rights. Advocating to remove rights from a group of people can reasonably be labeled as being anti those people.
They are called bigots.
The term seems a bit harsh, but appropriate.
Being “against being gay” is comparable to being “against being Black.” They are both inherent characteristics of a human who exists.
You may consider being against rights for gay people to not be anti-gay. I disagree and won’t put energy into arguing the point. I would similarly consider it anti-Black to be against Black marriage. I would also consider it anti-Black to strip civil rights protections to make it legal to fire people for being Black.
I consider it wrong and anti-gay to be against rights for gay people, but concede it’s even worse to consider it wrong that a gay person exists.
Is it okay for old women to get married? Men with vasectomies? What makes them more likely to produce a child than a gay person?
Honestly, I’m done with this line of discussion. Others may continue.
Marriage benefits in the US support much more than family formation. Should I remarry, that will ensure that I can visit a hypothetical spouse in the hospital should she fall ill, would allow her to continue to live in my house should I die, etc. If gay marriage were to be made illegal, I would lose those protections.
youre missing the point of the discussion. do you consider the person im describing as anti gay? it has to with fiscal matters. that person could also be against old people gettin married for tax benefits. it’s just a hypothetical scenario.
I’m not missing your points. I find your arguments disingenuous at most gracious, and don’t have an interest to further argue your hypotheticals about which specific rights one must oppose to be considered “anti-gay”.
this is not valid where i live. you can just tell the hospital that your partner is a caregiver.
In the US, prior to legalization of gay marriage, the spouse’s family had precedence and could exclude a gay spouse from everything.
Why is this relevant?
A gay man is free to marry any woman he chooses. Same as a straight man. I’m not sure what rights are being denied here.
Especially where there was no legal definition of spouse
All In The Family had a great episode on this almost 50 years ago.
ikr, I can just find some dude to marry. Problem totally solved.