First there was opposition to homosexuality--back in the 1970s.
The homosexual "lifestyle" was the problem, and the unspoken adjective on that noun was "promiscuous."
Then gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people and others began to have public ceremonies for their unions.
"Same-sex union" entered the vocabulary, but churches were not supposed to sanction these unions. After all, they involved homosexuals.
When the GLBT contingent began demanding full rights to marriage under state and federal law, their opponents said that extending these rights would somehow weaken or diminish straight marriages.
I don't see how that claim makes any sense, but we now have a federal law denying marriage to two persons of the same sex, the Defense of Marriage Act. Apparently, marriage as an institution needs to be defended.
What do these opponents of gay marriage want?
Civil unions that are clearly set apart from economic benefits and social approval?
Gay one-night stands?
The homosexual "lifestyle" was the problem, and the unspoken adjective on that noun was "promiscuous."
Then gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people and others began to have public ceremonies for their unions.
"Same-sex union" entered the vocabulary, but churches were not supposed to sanction these unions. After all, they involved homosexuals.
When the GLBT contingent began demanding full rights to marriage under state and federal law, their opponents said that extending these rights would somehow weaken or diminish straight marriages.
I don't see how that claim makes any sense, but we now have a federal law denying marriage to two persons of the same sex, the Defense of Marriage Act. Apparently, marriage as an institution needs to be defended.
What do these opponents of gay marriage want?
Civil unions that are clearly set apart from economic benefits and social approval?
Gay one-night stands?
No comments:
Post a Comment