. . . Yes, they certainly do have that right, just as before the repeal of miscegenation laws, black people had exactly the same right as white people did: to marry a person of the same race. No exceptions made for people who were in love with someone of the other race, or weren't interested in people of their own race.
This is not a fight for "special rights" because of a deviation from a norm. This is a fight for the basic right that the norm has, and that the deviants* do not, because of their deviation: to marry a person you love.
I probably ought to disclaim the word "marry," here, since marriage carries religious connotations, and many people just want their same-sex civil union to be recognized as legal, without dragging any kind of church marriage into it -- but I think that's beside the point of this argument.
If you believe that gay people should be happy with their right to marry someone they don't love, and that demanding the right to unite with someone they do love is somehow demanding special rights . . . if you believe that a minority group can or should be denied a basic right to choose what they do, when those choices hurt no one . . . yes, I think you will find that to be an unpopular opinion around here.
I assume you posted this comment because you're willing to discuss your views, and I hope we can keep the conversation reasonably polite. And I don't want you to feel unwelcome in my journal -- but honestly, yes, that opinion is going to be unpopular here.
*I use this word only because you used it. I'm willing to use it in a technical sense -- that is, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, therefore they are deviants, in the same way that a woman I know has only one leg and sometimes uses a wheelchair to get around, which is a deviation from the norm, therefore she is a deviant. I am not at all comfortable with the implications, though. If you are using it in a sense that isn't the purely technical sense, I'll cordially ask you to find another word, please.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 03:50 am (UTC)This is not a fight for "special rights" because of a deviation from a norm. This is a fight for the basic right that the norm has, and that the deviants* do not, because of their deviation: to marry a person you love.
I probably ought to disclaim the word "marry," here, since marriage carries religious connotations, and many people just want their same-sex civil union to be recognized as legal, without dragging any kind of church marriage into it -- but I think that's beside the point of this argument.
If you believe that gay people should be happy with their right to marry someone they don't love, and that demanding the right to unite with someone they do love is somehow demanding special rights . . . if you believe that a minority group can or should be denied a basic right to choose what they do, when those choices hurt no one . . . yes, I think you will find that to be an unpopular opinion around here.
I assume you posted this comment because you're willing to discuss your views, and I hope we can keep the conversation reasonably polite. And I don't want you to feel unwelcome in my journal -- but honestly, yes, that opinion is going to be unpopular here.
*I use this word only because you used it. I'm willing to use it in a technical sense -- that is, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, therefore they are deviants, in the same way that a woman I know has only one leg and sometimes uses a wheelchair to get around, which is a deviation from the norm, therefore she is a deviant. I am not at all comfortable with the implications, though. If you are using it in a sense that isn't the purely technical sense, I'll cordially ask you to find another word, please.