Originally posted by RoxStar
I was referring to the allowing of same sex marriages, not the allowing of someone to be gay.
So are you suggesting that as long as gays aren't allowed to marry they'll eventually choose a mate with which they can reproduce?
Not a very logical argument if so... I'm inclined to believe that gay people will choose gay sexual partners regardless of whether they will be allowed to marry. The advantage of allowing marriage is simply a legal one.
Married couples have certain rights afforded to them, particularly with regard to property, insurance, employment benefits, etc.
I believe that the so-called Christian Right uses the anti-homosexuality position as a means of creating unity within it's organization. This is one of the lead arguments that this fundamentalist movement espouses. The reason is quite elementary: whenever a group or movement can create an other
, the members of the group will band against the other
and a sense of unity and cohesion is formed.
The same has happened throughout recorded history. White settlers vs the Indian; Amercian vs Japanese American (WWII); American vs Muslim American (Bush's War); White Americans vs the Negro; Aryan vs Jew; Arab vs Jew; Jew vs Arab; Serb vs Bosnian/Croat/etc.; Christian vs witches; and so on.
It's also been used with success by minority groups as a way to overcome oppression: African American vs the White Establishment; Women vs the Male Establishment; and so on.
As to the argument of "a Straight Parade would be seen as bigotted," I think this is a poor example. It would be similar to saying that "if a parade were held to commemorate White Achievement, it would be viewed as bigotted." Of course it would. Whites are already advantaged so it would be unseemly to hold a parade to march for more advantage.