Posted on 06/24/2011 8:52:17 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
Whatever one thinks about the pros and cons of gay marriage, a tolerant society cannot deny the right of homosexual couples to formalise their relationship. But the campaign for gay marriage is not just about rights but about the contestation of values and attitudes.
From a sociological perspective, the ascendancy of the campaign for gay marriage provides a fascinating story about the dynamics of the cultural conflicts that prevail in Western society. During the past decade the issue of gay marriage has been transformed into a cultural weapon that explicitly challenges prevailing norms through condemning those who oppose it. This is not so much a call for legal change as a cause: one that endows its supporters with moral superiority and demotes its opponents with the status of moral inferiority.
As a result, it does not simply represent a claim for a right but a demand for the institutionalisation of new moral and cultural values. This attitude was clearly expressed last weekend by Trevor Phillips, chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission. The burden of his argument was to accuse Christians, particularly evangelicals, of being more troublesome than Muslims in their attitudes towards mainstream views. In particular he warned that "an old-time religion incompatible with modern society" was driving Christians to clash with mainstream views, especially on gay issues. Incidentally, by "mainstream" he naturally means views he endorses.
Phillips's use of language implies opponents of gay marriage are likely to be motivated by "old-time religion", which is by definition "incompatible with modern society". From this standpoint, criticism or the questioning of the moral status of gay marriage violates the cultural standards of "modern society". What we have here is the casual affirmation of a double standard: tolerance towards supporters of gay marriage and intolerance directed towards its opponents.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
BS
There are obviously some things society should not be tolerant of.
Yeah. Christian conservatives are just so much worse to homosexuals than barbaric Muslims are to homosexuals.
Liberalism is not only a mental disorder, but fundamentally, it’s a spriritual disorder.
AMEN!
The intolerant gays are the bad guys in this article.
Yeah, try selling this "marriage" in Iran. Let's see how tolerant and enlightened muslims really are.
Tolerance? LOL
Don’t make me laugh. I;m in Hollywood and the faggots are the most INTOLERANT bastards aside from liberals I know of. You say something that you disagree with and they pounce on you like Muslims on a white woman. I’ve seen it firsthand here. They have liberal politicians doing their dirty work to pass laws because they know the populace disagrees with their degenerate puke lifestyle.
And a city full of AID/HIV TEST billboards at every major intersection. Yep, I love L.A. (VOMIT0
....................................
It's the tolerant people who stifle debate and urge the shunning of the "intolerant". It's the tolerant ones who shout down the "intolerant" in public forums. Whenever I learn that someone is tolerant, I prepare myself for vicious personal attacks and backstabbing attempts to silence opposition.
“Whatever one thinks about the pros and cons of gay marriage, a tolerant society cannot deny the right of homosexual couples to formalise their relationship.”
An opinion stated as fact.
Otherwise known as bullshit.
“Whatever one thinks about the pros and cons of gay marriage, a tolerant society cannot deny the right of homosexual couples to formalise their relationship.”
An opinion stated as fact.
Otherwise known as bullshit.
“Let’s see how tolerant and enlightened muslims really are. “
Hanging can be considered “tolerance”, right?
Yeah, I agree, that statement sounds sanctimonious too.
I’m also aware that homosexual domestic violence is very high (another fact you don’t read in the media).
You can't forgive and get past this deplorable, false statement:
"Whatever one thinks about the pros and cons of gay marriage, a tolerant society cannot deny the right of homosexual couples to formalise their relationship."
“Yeah, I agree, that statement sounds sanctimonious too.”
It’s otherwise a very good article.
The article goes on to paint “tolerance” in a bad light.
Exactly. It's a direct attack on the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our society and culture. Without those, any sort of activity will be considered OK, and that's what they want.
They use the compassion of Christians against us, by appealing to Christians who have lost their tether to morality, and making them feel bad for being judgemental about someone else's behavior. The homosexual activists want to engage in any sort of activity that might be considered sinful, and they don't want anyone to pass judgement on their behavior.
This can be done without any sort of 'marriage'. Activists convince those who are wavering that they HAVE to be able to marry because they can't do the things that married people can do like inherit property, make decisions for each other in the hospital, etc. The truth is they CAN do those things with legal contracts, etc.
Civil Unions would do the trick, and they could be set up so that any two people could take advantage of them. A single man could form a civil union with his elderly mother, or two elderly sisters or brothers could do so, so that decisions could be made easily without any interference by any civil authorities. Setting them up this way would remove the notion of them being especially for homosexuals, and take the idea of 'homosexual marriage' off the table, because marriage would be unnecessary to attain the things they say they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.