Wrong again. The issue is a push to DENY that homosexuality is an equally valid expression BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT EVEN HOMOSEXUAL! Which is a seriously questionable demand.
If you're not gay, why do you even CARE about gay marriage. Seriously, ask yourself that.
The gays can already get children without marriage. So WHY WHY WHY do you care so much? Ask yourself that. It's not about kids, or combat or anything. It's about YOU. Hmmm.
For me the resistance is becoming more a point of principle that society should not become a slave to the idea that main stream traditions have to be bent out of shape to accommodate
They aren't being bent out of shape. What's the shape that is changing? Marriage still means EXACTLY what it meant before: a contract between two individuals and NOTHING in the contract (nowadays) applies to one gender and not the other. (Did you notice that change? We women are allowed to own property and stuff now.) NOTHING in marriage law says
this is applicable to the men in the marriage and
that is applicable to the women. Every word of marriage law is gender neutral. NOTHING is bent
in any way if both spouses are women or men.
Name one thing in the marriage law that has to be adjusted if both partners are male. One pertinent thing to the act of
being married that you can even distinguish between genders.
You keep coming back to this idea that all women are the same and all completely different from any man. Stay-at-home-dads notwithstanding (I know many and they are
married to women and no one denied them a marriage license because they are failing to behave like proper men,) and married women in combat notwithstanding (ditto).
Your idea is just
bankrupt. And you know it and that's why you can't offer any evidence or specifics. You keep circling back to these expected gender roles that you want to FORCE on people you don't even know.
This is such an interesting phrase. It's used by conservatives who want to show disdain for public opinion. They re-label it "political correctness" as if that somehow means no one is doing it of their free will and there is no actual support for the issue. But again this is a shallow and superficial decoration that you try to pass off as an argument.
What is PC, really? It is updated
Public Opinion. Saying it means you are clinging to some creepy outdated meanness and oppression and you just can't STAND that no one agrees with you any more - that society has moved on to a more evolved and humane stance, so you create this mocking phrase, "politically correct" and try to pass it off as some mechanism by which a tiny minority oppresses you.
But really, it can't be
Politically Correct unless it buys public confidence in a political actor. So think about that really think about it. Anything that IS "Politically Correct" is actually supported by massive public opinion - enough to sway elections - and that's why the politicians will cave to it. They need to be "correct" in the eyes of the majority of the public in order to get re-elected. THAT'S what "politically correct" actually means, functionally.
In this case it happens to also align with the constitution of the US (dunno about Australia), with kindness, with science, with nature, and with experience.
"PC" means majority opinion. Otherwise it wouldn't be politically useful, now would it.
(or, put more simply, any time I hear someone say, "oh we have to be PC" it immediately translates in my head to, "Goddamnit! Why can't we call them niggers anymore!?")
e.g. saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays.
What? You're one of these? One who says, I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't care about you as a person or an individual and let you know that I think I'm dominant because I get off on that and feel powerful and righteous. Because saying Happy Holidays tarnishes my popular-kids-badge. Oh - one of
those.
The homosexual marriage crap is just another example of this. Their legal needs can easily be met without this redefinition so
This is another interesting statement. So you think they could "easily" get their legal needs met and they are fighting for something that is unnecessary for full equality because... wait, WHY do you think they would bother try to fight for this if their needsa re already easily met?
(note: you've been given examples of real people whose needs are NOT met and you haven't addressed them. We see what you did there. Sorry, didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.)
I think they should just compromise and go with some amendments to relevant existing legislation that will extend the existing rights to homosexual partners.
Why should they? It is far easier and does no harm to just have no one who is a consenting pair denied marriage. You're funny saying you can tell them they should do extra work to deliver what YOU want. Hey, if you want it, YOU make some ammendments, eh? Yeah, I didn;'t think so.
This straight lady supports equal marriage because it is the only way to provide full rights to all citizens, because it doesn't hurt me anyway, because it's cheaper and easier to do it this way and because the kids NEED their parents to have access to full protection on their behalf.
