A civil ceremony isn't enough, because legally, a civil union for a homosexual couple isn't the same as a marriage for a heterosexual couple.
The issue isn't that homosexuals can't have a religious wedding, it's that homosexual couples are being denied the rights given to heterosexual couples.
The issue isn't that homosexuals can't have a religious wedding, it's that homosexual couples are being denied the rights given to heterosexual couples.
i dont think that a gay relationship should be the same as a straight one, as they just are not the same, they furfil different roles in society and are veiwed differently.
"as they just are not the same, they furfil different roles in society"
Roles such as?
"veiwed differently."
Yes, and for no valid reason.
Roles such as?
"veiwed differently."
Yes, and for no valid reason.
watch any american drama, you can see that in the relationship, the partners take different roles.
You're confusing roles within the relationship with roles in society here. If a partner is dominant/ submissive/ butch/ femme/ girly or whatever else that doesn't describe what the social function of the relationship is.
The opinions of bystanders, do not affect this function either. A marriage between a black and a white person is perceived differently in many countries than one between two people of the same skintone. This does not change the function.
One can define the social function in many ways: to raise children, to afford people with stability in their life, to lower the cost of living (as married people usually share accommodation), companionship, tax benefits, certain rights of inheritance.
All of these functions can as easily be attributed to gay relationships as they can to heterosexual ones.
You're argument is easily reversible too. Say we did create an institution that was equal to marriage in all but name. It looks like a marriage, smells like a marriage, for all purposes is a marriage: how exactly is calling it something different not discrimination at that point?
Now, I personally agree with you on not wanting to have anything to do with traditional gender roles and the values that some people attach to the word marriage, but that feels like a completely different debate to me.
The opinions of bystanders, do not affect this function either. A marriage between a black and a white person is perceived differently in many countries than one between two people of the same skintone. This does not change the function.
One can define the social function in many ways: to raise children, to afford people with stability in their life, to lower the cost of living (as married people usually share accommodation), companionship, tax benefits, certain rights of inheritance.
All of these functions can as easily be attributed to gay relationships as they can to heterosexual ones.
You're argument is easily reversible too. Say we did create an institution that was equal to marriage in all but name. It looks like a marriage, smells like a marriage, for all purposes is a marriage: how exactly is calling it something different not discrimination at that point?
Now, I personally agree with you on not wanting to have anything to do with traditional gender roles and the values that some people attach to the word marriage, but that feels like a completely different debate to me.
relationships are part of society, just as people are. A family is just a very small society. All that a society is a large level of human interaction. A family is a small level of human interaction.
American dramas are fiction and aren't a valid source to cite.
Try again.
Try again.
oh yes they are written by humans who portray a relationship, its very accurate.
It's irrelevant who's writing it. A work of fiction is not a valid source to cite.
Give me some hard data.
Give me some hard data.
well if you watch any show on channel 4 about families, they are quite similar to families in real life, because its a the same interaction.
watch hollyoaks.
watch hollyoaks.
View all replies