An unusual consideration of so called primitive heterosexuality. A point of view you don't see every day. Growing up gay in America I often heard mainstream messages about the dark side of homosexuality. But the dark side of heterosexuality was something I actually saw all the time.

Primitive Heterosexuality: From Steubenville to the Marriage Altar

In other words, to be married is the best of all worlds, key to
stable families, successful children, robust society… And yet, there’s
Steubenville, and not just Steubenville, but Anytown, USA, where the
mostly straight products of those mostly straight sacred unions behave
like animals.

What links these seemingly disjoint stories, despite the emphasis on
“gay” in the marriage debate, is heterosexual culture, something it
would pay to think seriously about before running off with hair on fire
about rape culture or, alternatively, getting misty-eyed about “I dos.”
Reality is somewhat less grandiose.

http://www.thenation.com/article/173740/primitive-heterosexuality-steubenville-marriage-altar#

My point of view about gay marriage rights is that it is a matter of civil rights and equality under the law. Not the same as holding up marriage as something that isn't very flawed, as is any human institution. Supporting gay marriage LEGAL equality is not the same thing as suggesting every gay person actually do it!

My point of view about gay marriage rights is that it is a matter of civil rights and equality under the law.

My point too. That's why I have still not understood the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

Well, I do. The difference is that Marriage has a religious connotations. Buddhist monks have conducted gay marriages for a long time. But is has no legal effects.

I think a Civil Partnership is much more important than a Marriage.

My point of view about gay marriage rights is that it is a matter of civil rights and equality under the law.

My point too. That's why I have still not understood the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

Well, I do. The difference is that Marriage has a religious connotations. Buddhist monks have conducted gay marriages for a long time. But is has no legal effects.

I think a Civil Partnership is much more important than a Marriage.

If it's not exactly the same thing, it's not exactly the same equality. How unequal depends on the laws of the region or nation in question. But really this topic wasn't meant to be about marriage vs. civil unions. We've discussed that ad nauseum on this forum for years now, eh?

My point of view about gay marriage rights is that it is a matter of civil rights and equality under the law.

My point too. That's why I have still not understood the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

Well, I do. The difference is that Marriage has a religious connotations. Buddhist monks have conducted gay marriages for a long time. But is has no legal effects.

I think a Civil Partnership is much more important than a Marriage.

If it's not exactly the same thing, it's not exactly the same equality. How unequal depends on the laws of the region or nation in question. But really this topic wasn't meant to be about marriage vs. civil unions. We've discussed that ad nauseum on this forum for years now, eh?

I do believe this thread is about wording rather than content (which was my point), and I do believe that you have just confirmed this.

And yes, this has been discussed earlier. But obviously there has been no generally-accepted conclusion, so the discussion is going on.

Actually I wanted people to read the article because I found it pretty bizarre and I was curious mostly about people's reactions to the parts about primitive heterosexuality. As a small minority I think gay people are used to be looked at critically by society at large and because of this we are often put in a defensive social position. I found the idea of looking at straight people in the same kind of critical light a fresh approach.

I get your point now.

"Gay marriage" imitating "primitive heterosexuality" is quite a mouthful though. I don't think I agree with any interpretation (that I can think of) that justifies this vocabulary.

My point of view about gay marriage rights is that it is a matter of civil rights and equality under the law.

My point too. That's why I have still not understood the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

Well, I do. The difference is that Marriage has a religious connotations. Buddhist monks have conducted gay marriages for a long time. But is has no legal effects.

I think a Civil Partnership is much more important than a Marriage.

If it's not exactly the same thing, it's not exactly the same equality. How unequal depends on the laws of the region or nation in question. But really this topic wasn't meant to be about marriage vs. civil unions. We've discussed that ad nauseum on this forum for years now, eh?

Difficult to really know what the article really is about, other than how unpleasant "heartland" America is.

The author fails to make any real link between some unpleasant 16 year olds getting drunk and gay marriage, probably because there isn't any.

Even her idea that "marriage would signal that one’s passage to full heterosexual maturity was complete" is flawed - for most in the sort of marriages she is talking about any "completion" of the "passage" would be producing children (presumably the same unpleasant 16 year olds, etc...), while to others it may be divorce, or to some death.

"If it's not exactly the same thing, it's not exactly the same equality." Another flawed idea. Women don't have urinals in their toilets; does that make the toilets any less "equal"? Men's swimming trunks aren't quite the same as women's - whose are less "equal"? The last time I checked two men (or two women) couldn't produce a baby - does that make such a couple any less "equal"? Is Bill Gates any less equal then the farang hobo outside Lotus who doesn't need glasses or a home (other than a couple of carrier bags) or does his money make him more "equal"?

You can make tangible things equal, like equal rights to pensions, taxation, housing, transport, schooling, adoption, benefits, etc, but some things aren't tangible and however much you legislate they never will be - marriage is one of them, until someone far brighter than me comes up with a universal definition for it, and no-one I know of has managed that so far.

Equality is overrated. People aren't equal, and they never will be and that isn't something that "the laws of the region or nation in question" can do anything about.

If you're married and you have immigration rights, for one of thousands of examples, and if you're in a civil union and you don't, that is NOT equal.

The idea that civil rights and equality under laws isn't desirable is simply beyond the pale.

BTW, thank you LC for commenting on the actual content of the article as well. Which has nothing to do with marriage vs. civil unions.

If you're married and you have immigration rights, for one of thousands of examples, and if you're in a civil union and you don't, that is NOT equal.

The idea that civil rights and equality under laws isn't desirable is simply beyond the pale.

BTW, thank you LC for commenting on the actual content of the article as well. Which has nothing to do with marriage vs. civil unions.

Being "married" does NOT give you any more (or any less) immigration rights than if you're in a "civil union". Its entirely up to the laws and definitions of the individual country you want to emigrate to, nothing whatever to do with your own country's definition of marriage (gay, straight, multiple, arranged, child, etc, etc). Many countries (particularly western ones) give far MORE rights to an informal but verifiable domestic partner (of either the same or the opposite sex) than to a formal marriage.

Marriage in one country may be a criminal offence in another - and I am not referring particularly to gay marriage, or to those countries that are the "usual suspects" here.

Equality under the law not "desirable"? That's debatable, but the reality is that its a social and biological impossibility.

The articles content? Agreed, nothing to do with marriage vs civil unions; nothing to do with gays, either!

Being "married" does NOT give you any more (or any less) immigration rights than if you're in a "civil union".

It was an example. Just because it doesn't apply in YOUR country I still felt you were capable of getting the CONCEPT. OBVIOUSLY if civil unions and marriage are exactly equal legally, then an argument can be made it's just a word.

Being "married" does NOT give you any more (or any less) immigration rights than if you're in a "civil union".

It was an example. Just because it doesn't apply in YOUR country I still felt you were capable of getting the CONCEPT. OBVIOUSLY if civil unions and marriage are exactly equal legally, then an argument can be made it's just a word.

You're missing the point, JT, as well as the "CONCEPT, as your "example" doesn't apply in ANY country.

You're also missing and confusing a rather more important point: human rights and equality are not the same thing.

I'm all for human rights, and I think the right to have a relationship between two consenting adults recognised is one of those, particularly if it confers some financial and social rights. Since there is no internationally accepted (or in the case of the US even nationally accepted) definition of "marriage", though, its difficult to see how "marriage" as a "concept" can be a human right.

Equality? Its nonsense, even as a concept. People aren't created equal, and they never will be, nor will they ever have equal opportunities. From the moment you are born where and to whom you are born DOES make a difference, and nothing will ever change that.