Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

But Gay Men Can Get Married! (To Women)

[Letter writer Jeremy Roberts] writes that ‘homosexuals share exactly the same right to marry as heterosexuals’ because gay men can marry women, just like other men. That is simple sophistry. If, for example, the government only allowed same-sex marriage, Roberts could then clearly explain how that right would not be the ‘same’ for the average man as would be the right to marry women. If a law made it illegal to be a Mormon, I hope Roberts would not claim that Latter-day Saint citizens still had ‘equal rights’ to religion because, hey, they could still be Hindu, just like everyone else.” [Salt Lake Tribune]

By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 20, 2009
Tagged: ,

  • 12 Comments
    • tavdy79
      tavdy79

      Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

      * (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
      * (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
      * (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

      In other words, a person has the right to marry whomever they choose, rather than having that right controlled by a third party (e.g. in an arranged marriage) and religion should not be allowed to interfere with this right.

      Mar 20, 2009 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Klyphe
      Klyphe

      I remember reading this at an art exhibit in DC and feeling completely shocked that this was so explicitly laid out in an international doctrine that the US had signed on to.

      But from what I can remember learning about the history of the UN and how the US deals with it, the US tends to use it when it’s useful and ignore it the rest of the time…

      Mar 20, 2009 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      How bout if 100 couples (gay men and lesbians) show up in Salt Lake city and file for marriage certificates?

      Oh yeah, then they’ll say we are mocking marriage

      Mar 20, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dubwise
      Dubwise

      They used to say that those of different colored skin had the right to marry. They had the right to marry those a shared skin color.

      Mar 20, 2009 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stef
      Stef

      Nothing says sanctity like people who don’t like each other getting married because they’re the “right” genders.

      Mar 20, 2009 at 1:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brianna
      Brianna

      You can marry someone of the opposite sex…but you can’t marry someone you love.

      Mar 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Jeremy is no different than the people who were against interracial marriage (they said it would lead to people marrying animals sound familiar). He only care about rights as they relate to himself and seems to lack the empathy and intelligence to put himself in others shoes.

      Mar 20, 2009 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blancmanger
      Blancmanger

      Universal Declaration of Human Rights was aspirational when adopted, not actually mandatory for everyone to adhere. So… that’s why it is used when it’s useful and ignored otherwise.

      Mar 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Jeremy Roberts is an idiot. So we can marry women, sure! What straight woman in her right mind would marry a gay man and what if he refuses to have sex with her and probably would, what then? So what the f–k is Roberts’ point? Would he marry a lesbian who didn’t want sex with him? What a twit! He’s argument is flawed and irrelevant.

      Mar 21, 2009 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      @getreal:

      My point was that these states that have passed same-sex marriage “bans” have, in reality, but a ban on the word “marriage” for a relationship. Excluding state like Utah, there are victories still to be won.

      Curiously, I strongly advocate rights for homosexual couples. And I’d never be paranoid enough to assume that homosexual relationships will result in people marrying animals.

      I find it interesting, however, that people who advocate a forum of ideas and open dialogue would react with such vile disregard for an opinion that they do not understand.

      I’d submit that anyone wanting to forward an agenda supporting benefits for homosexual couples will need to deal with the reality that the battle is the word marriage.

      And an open, honest conversation about what victories the gay/lesbian/transgenered community can gain without fighting the semantic battle of “marriage” should be closely regarded.

      That was my point. And if this offended anyone I offer my sincere apology.

      Apr 21, 2009 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Jeremy: If it is just a semantic argument then people should let go of the heterosexual privilege and let go of the word. If you really advocate rights for LGBT people you will not be arguing for their continued treatment as 2nd class citizens in this country. All Americans should have the same right period. If you don’t believe in same sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex that is where your rights end. It is not your right to try to force your values on other Americans and their families.

      Apr 21, 2009 at 1:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Jeremy:

      I tried to find your article, and unfortunately it has been archived and they’re charging money to view it

      It’s not just the word – the dispute is over the institution of marriage.
      Many church groups claim it as a sacred thing, but ultimately it is subject to the laws of the land and therefore secular.

      An interesting bit of trivia – Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan dictatorship actually outlawed church marriage in England in the 1650s. The only legally recognized ceremony was one conducted by a magistrate.
      Interesting that the most fundamentalist of christians would be so hard-line about the secular foundation of marriage.

      Apr 21, 2009 at 1:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.