Hi Mercatornet! I've taken a long break, but now I'm back! It seems like people are still arguing as usual. To jump straight into the topic above, with a few observations:
1) 'Marriage' as increasingly defined by progressives can be boiled down to an emotional, consensual contract at its core. Instead of being defined by sexed bodies, it is now a personal affirmation of self-worth and esteem, one more consumer product that is supposed to bring happiness. All of the above is all very well, but this is the problem: this version of 'marriage', by virtue of being defined as an emotional contract, DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST. In light of the drastically increasing cohabitation rates (especially in the U.K.), people are now asking: Why do you need a piece of legal paper to legitimize your emotions? Another problem arises when progressives define marriage as about 'rights' - civil unions, for better or worse, are capable of fulfilling that aspect, with hospital visitation rights, last will etc. covered. Technically, from a practical perspective, civil unions and this version of 'marriage' aren't really that different.
2) While there have been plenty of people on this site who would want to blame LGBT activism, remember that LGBT people in a sense have also merely been copying the trends set by the rest of the population over the years. It is the heteronormative population that have been saying that marriage is 'all about love' over the years (i.e. emotional contract), to which the LGBT population have replied, "But wait a moment! We have feelings and love too!" No surprises there.
3) While progressives have been championing that sooner or later lots of countries/states will legitimize the notion of same-sex 'marriage', what they have failed to realize that this new, disembodied version of 'marriage' is now more or less an optional accessory in life. What they have failed to realize/or don't want to say is that marriage rates would most likely drop, if Europe is meant to be an example. Arguments like 'letting gay people marry would encourage straight people to marry' are simply redundant - as to why, see reason 2 above.
So in light of the above, why do LGBT people still want marriage? The answer is simple - Marriage throughout human history has been one of the most significant rite of passages in life. However, this is what pro-LGBT have failed to grasp: The significance of marriage across all civilizations relies on the differently sexed natures of complementary bodies. This is the irony: The moment they try to seize marriage's significance for their own is also the moment in which they destroy the basis as to why marriage was ever historically significant in the first place.
1) 'Marriage' as increasingly defined by progressives can be boiled down to an emotional, consensual contract at its core. Instead of being defined by sexed bodies, it is now a personal affirmation of self-worth and esteem, one more consumer product that is supposed to bring happiness. All of the above is all very well, but this is the problem: this version of 'marriage', by virtue of being defined as an emotional contract, DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST. In light of the drastically increasing cohabitation rates (especially in the U.K.), people are now asking: Why do you need a piece of legal paper to legitimize your emotions? Another problem arises when progressives define marriage as about 'rights' - civil unions, for better or worse, are capable of fulfilling that aspect, with hospital visitation rights, last will etc. covered. Technically, from a practical perspective, civil unions and this version of 'marriage' aren't really that different.
2) While there have been plenty of people on this site who would want to blame LGBT activism, remember that LGBT people in a sense have also merely been copying the trends set by the rest of the population over the years. It is the heteronormative population that have been saying that marriage is 'all about love' over the years (i.e. emotional contract), to which the LGBT population have replied, "But wait a moment! We have feelings and love too!" No surprises there.
3) While progressives have been championing that sooner or later lots of countries/states will legitimize the notion of same-sex 'marriage', what they have failed to realize that this new, disembodied version of 'marriage' is now more or less an optional accessory in life. What they have failed to realize/or don't want to say is that marriage rates would most likely drop, if Europe is meant to be an example. Arguments like 'letting gay people marry would encourage straight people to marry' are simply redundant - as to why, see reason 2 above.
So in light of the above, why do LGBT people still want marriage? The answer is simple - Marriage throughout human history has been one of the most significant rite of passages in life. However, this is what pro-LGBT have failed to grasp: The significance of marriage across all civilizations relies on the differently sexed natures of complementary bodies. This is the irony: The moment they try to seize marriage's significance for their own is also the moment in which they destroy the basis as to why marriage was ever historically significant in the first place.
