The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 05-11-2013, 06:17 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
I've understood your point of view, but if the religion of a heir is Catholic, Muslim or another? Then, the Church (or other institution) could be very much against such a monarch, despite all his other achievements, what he will be supposed to do in such a situation?
I think when one's sexuality and one's religion are at odds, regardless of position in life, they have to make a personal decision as to how to proceed. Some chose religion over their sexuality, others chose sexuality over religion, and others try to grapple with both. Unfortunately for a monarch who is connected with the church in some official capacity, this becomes even more difficult.

For example, if the CoE has a negative stance on homosexuality (I say if because I'm not sure of their official stance) and the British monarch, who is the nominal head of the CoE, was openly gay there's going to be a problem between the two, one that may result in a change of the church's stance, a separation between the two, or an abdication.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 05-11-2013, 07:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
...Strategically, cogent arguments can certainly be offered in support of the "gradual introduction of the concept of gay monarchy." But that step-by-step approach seems troublingly similar to the arguments offered to end Apartheid gradually. Either people have a right to marry whomever they choose or they don't. And if they have that right--which I firmly believe they do--then that right is as much the right of a monarch as it is of his/her subjects...
Obviously thisw is an issue that is very important for you but I think you miss some points that have been made in response to you.

In a monarchy people take a rather traditional and perhaps old fashioned view of their monarch and royal family. What people expect and want for themselves is not always something they expect and want for their monarch and royal family. Royalty live rather constrained lives compared to the general population and do not necessarily enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the general population.

You say laws come about because the people demand them. I would say that is not always the case. The laws on gay marriage have come about as the result of legislative changes and court rulings, which have not always received majority support by the voters. Californias Prop 8 is the most obvious response of voters rejecting such laws. Obviously at the time it was not something the majority of California voters were ready for.

Western society is slowly changing regarding the LGBT community and same sex marriage, but again I would argue that what a society may want and accept for itself it might have a harder time accepting in its leadership such as the monarch and its royal family. That will take more than just passing a law. It will take time for people to accept such an idea. Even in a republic such as the US I imagine it will be quite some time before voters elect an out Governor or President, let alone accept a same sex First Gentleman or First Lady.

In the UK we have a government that wants to pass same sex marriage legislation. Many MPs on the government side do not agree with the legislation. The proposed law has a specific exemption which actually would ban the Chirch of England from performing same sex marriage and the CofE officially disapproves of the whole idea. The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the CofE, so a gay monarch would present some constitutional difficulties should they wish to marry their same sex spouse.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 05-11-2013, 07:50 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 4,971
Vkrish & NGalitzine are absolutely right.

There is a huge difference between law and rights and what the general population want from their monarch.
There are at present nine monarchies and larger principalities in Europe, all of them are fairly safe - for now.
But it doesn't take much to change the mood, and then the monarchy itself can be in serious danger.
A monarch is a focus point for the population, representing continuity, stability, tradition and being living model for conservative and/or religious family core values. You cannot underestimate the importance of this.
Mistresses, something that previously was common, is now unacceptable. Even a divorce would be a serious "stain" on a monarch. Because a monarch must not become too ordinary or they will lose their "royal magic".

In other words, monarchs nowadays are preferably as uncontroversial as at all possible. - Simply in order to be accepted by as wide a segment of the population as possible. Better safe than sorry.

Homosexuality resulting in a same sex marriage for a monarch or future monarch is hugely controversial!
A lesser royal can away with it, and may even be applauded, but the monarch or the CP? No. - Not now, that will take time.

Homosexuality, open homosexuality in particular, and same sex marriages is for all sorts of reasons still frowned upon by a large segment of any population in any European country.

Let's toy with the idea:
A CP comes out and says: "I'm gay and here is the love of my life". That CP will become an icon for gay communities and people who consider themselves progressive. The CP will also become a major hate figure, not only in his/her own country but worldwide.
Also, you can be certain that the foreign ministry in that country will hate the idea. Because it's one thing to send an elected gay politician to countries where homosexuality is frowned upon or even outlawed. There are ways around that one. It's another thing to send a gay monarch, because the monarchy by it's very nature is a conservative institution. Sorry, but a gay monarch simply wouldn't carry nearly the same weight as a monarch who adheres to traditional family values in the present world.

Many, including myself, would look at same-sex,marriage-monarchy as being too modern. A monarchy is seen as an anchor embedded in history and traditions going back centuries, in a rapidly changing world. If the monarchy becomes too modern, or too ordinary for that matter, then the monarchy seize to be an anchor and instead it's part of the changing world.

Look at your own country, Wayne James. You live in a republic where homosexuality is widely accepted, even though same sex marriages is not.
Will a homosexual in a same-sex-marriage have a serious chance of becoming president of USA within the next say twenty years?
So far not even women have been serious contenders.
As I see it to have a chance of becoming president you have to be a man, religious (i.e. Christian), be married, have a family and preferably live a model-family life.
If you are a woman, an atheist or hindu, single, transvestite, deaf, believe in open marriages, homosexual, been divorced more than once or have children out of wedlock you are pretty much disqualified from becoming president in the eyes of the majority of the American people. - The same people who accept homosexuality, have gay friends and believe in women's rights.
But the President? Nah, the president shouldn't be too modern.
It will I'm convinced take some time before an open gay president will be accepted in USA.

And the monarchy is an institution that is a lot older and surrounded by a lot more tradition.
You see where I'm getting? It's not the legislation that matters, it's even not about tolerance. It's about people being very conservative in what they expect from their heads of state.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 05-11-2013, 11:06 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
...This, sadly, is true, and expands beyond just homosexuality. There will always be people who believe that being *insert difference* is wrong. It's a fundamental flaw in humans...
I agree 100%
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 05-11-2013, 11:40 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,508
Tolerance towards gays and gay marriage is increasing more rapidly than I expected in the Western world. I thought it would take several more generations, but now I expect widespread acceptance (though never 100%) in my lifetime. I don't see an issue if, say, one of the European children who are in line to inherit one day come out and want to live openly with a same sex spouse and children with full inheritance rights.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 05-11-2013, 11:44 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
First of all, thank you for welcoming me to your forum. I joined last night and have enjoyed every minute of it. I am especially pleased to participate in this discussion on same-sex marriage vis a vis royalty (and, by extension, people in general). The root of the issue--marriage equality--is this decade's equivalent of the civil rights, sexual revolution, abortion rights, and women's rights issues that faced the Western world during the 1970s and '80s. It is, therefore, an honor to participate in a discussion on an issue which will shape society as we know it for the foreseeable future.

I think part of the fundamental problem with discussing marriage equality (or any other issue which involves sexuality for that matter) is our oftentimes diametrically opposed views on the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the various expressions of human sexuality. Many of us, for example, were raised to believe that only two forms of human sexuality exist: heterosexuality and homosexuality. And it wasn't until recently--not until the late 1990s-- that many people even began truly acknowledging the existence of bi-sexuality. (In the minds of many people, "bi-sexuality" is just a euphemism--of sorts-- for homosexuality, According to those people, bi-sexuality is masked homosexuality). Today, however, people are increasingly becoming aware of the fact that sexuality occurs on a spectrum, ranging from 100% heterosexuality (which occurs very rarely) on one extreme, to 100% homosexuality (equally rare) on the other extreme, with 100% bi-sexuality (also equally rare) in the middle; and that most people are somewhere along that spectrum, gravitating either towards the heterosexual extreme, the homosexual extreme, or the bi-sexual median. And it is only when people come to terms with the fact that human sexuality is comprised of much more "gray" matter than black-and-white definition that people start to become more tolerant of other people's sexuality. Once people grasp the "Sexuality Spectrum Model," they become more tolerant of others because they see themselves as more sexually complex than they had previously acknowledged. And once people realize that sexuality is neither "right" nor "wrong"--that, instead, it just "is," then the discussions can truly move forward. But discussing marriage equality with people who view heterosexuality as the only valid sexuality construct is futile. Such persons, as they say, "simply need to be left at the foot of the cross."

Discussing such issues also requires acknowledgement that "reasonable minds will differ." Some people, for example, are of the opinion that same-sex marriage is appropriate for "regular people," but not for royals--at least not at this point in time. I fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree with such a position. I believe in equality. And as such, I believe that what is good for the goose (even those that lay golden eggs) is good for the gander.

America was wise when it embraced the concept of Separation of Church and State. For gay monarchs who are the titular heads of state religions, they need to seek guidance from the brave precedent set by Henry VIII. Whoever said that being a prince or a king was easy? Like the rest of humanity, kings and queens must also face difficult decisions in life. And like the rest of humanity, they must let their consciences and their intellects serve as their guides. Also, they must be brave. It is amazing what undaunted defiance will produce in the face of adversity. Who would ever have thought that the King of Spain would embrace same-sex marriage? Or who would ever have thought that marriage equality would become the law of the land in Argentina before in the United States? And while the circumstances are different for each country, such precedent serves as guidance. Monarchs who serve as titular heads of religious institutions routinely depart from religious tenets: three of Queen Elizabeth's four children divorced their spouses; the prince of Monaco had a child out of wedlock; Prince William and Kate Middleton lived together before getting married. What is the difference between the "departure" of gay marriage and those other departures?

Certainly, cautious, measured, incremental advancement of the notion of married, gay monarchs is a prudent and sure approach. But haven't gay people already waited long enough for marriage equality? Since it was outlawed in Rome in 342 C.E. and more comprehensively by the Justinian Code in 533 C.E. in what remained of the Eastern Roman Empire, gay people have been waiting for marriage equality to return. Hasn't that wait been long enough? Haven't enough gay people--including monarchs--gone to their graves without ever being able to fully embrace themselves and the people they love? Besides, many young people today don't even see sexuality as relevant to anything other than when engaging in sex. In their minds, sexuality has no bearing on whom they befriend, whom they hire or work with, whom they choose as their leaders. And if the concept of monarchy is to survive, it, like the Catholic Church, is going to have to address the needs of the upcoming generations. Young people have already seen Prince Harry in the nude--all over the internet. They already know that he is human just like they are. So for whom are we preaching a measured, conservative approach? For the future generation? Or for ourselves who keep grasping to the specter of a noble nobility which never truly existed? Very few people are truly capable of being more noble than other people: Jesus; Ghandi; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mother Theresa.... But some prince who became a prince by birth? Come on.... Let's be for real here.....

People who think it is right to "expect more" from their monarchs (and even from elected leaders) need to "get over" their expectations. Leaders, elected or otherwise, need only follow the laws of the land--no more, no less. And if they choose to go beyond the call of duty, then so be it.

Furthermore, it is the general public that keeps insisting that the royals are not and should not be "normal" people. The royals on the other hand, knowing that they are charged with a task that they cannot uphold, try at every turn to assert and re-assert their "normalness." And as such, they "act out" and behave like normal people every chance they get--so much so that they sometimes go overboard.... Like Prince Harry. (I mean.... really....Which decent man takes off his clothes at a party? His grandmother the queen should have put him over her lap and given him a royal whipping). And wasn't one of the Infantas of Spain recently implicated in some financial matter? Time after time, the royals insist upon being normal. But their subjects refuse to accept their declarations of normalcy. The crown princess of Sweden married her former personal trainer. He is now a "Duke." Should people really expect him to be anything other than a personal trainer? (People also like to insist that clergy should be "above" other people. And we have all seen the results of that. The moral of the story, then, is not that the emperor has no clothing.... The moral of the story is that the emperor is just a man to begin with--and should, fundamentally, despite the trappings and traditions to the contrary, be regarded as such--nothing more, nothing less). Furthermore, royals are the last people on Earth who should be held to a higher standard of anything. After all, they do not arrive at their positions based on merit. They are handed their positions at birth, regardless of their abilities. So for society to expect people who have not been tried and tested to perform above and beyond is, at best, ludicrous.

Any royal who sits on the throne of a country with laws which allow same-sex marriage should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex if he so chooses. And when laws reflect the will of the majority to the detriment of the minority, many countries have constitution or allow for judicial review to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected and preserved. We have all seen throughout the course of history that the majority can be wrong. And it is for that reason that countries have constitutions which codify the supreme laws of the land, their aim being to protect all people, regardless of their minority or majority status.

The Unites States Supreme Court will soon consider the long-overdue issue of marriage equality. And if the Court rules in favor of marriage equality across America, American people will gladly embrace a gay president and First Gentleman. That is the American way.... America is built upon the concept of talent, not privilege. Who would have ever thought that a black man named "Barak Obama" could have ever been elected president of the United States? Americans did. And that's why he won and then won again. And the same will be for a qualified woman, Jew, homosexual, or atheist. At the end of the day, America celebrates talent, freedom, equality, and fundamental rights. And just as other countries, during the course of history, have served as the models for certain cultural accomplishments, America is the country that will not only enact laws for marriage equality, it will truly allow those laws to be applied to its citizenry--from the person occupying the White House, to the person living in public housing. That is the nature of America. In America, intolerance is rapidly becoming intolerable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 05-12-2013, 02:31 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
At the end of the day, America celebrates talent, freedom, equality, and fundamental rights.
Oh you certainly celebrate fundamental rights. I actually just watched a program the other day about American Conversion Camps which attempt to convert Gay people into being straight people because being gay is just an 'idea'. Those people, will always exist in society and just like racial disputes, religious disputes, sexuality will always be disputed until we all become robots! It will never be fully accepted by any country.

Currently we won't have a Gay monarch anywhere in the world as far as I am aware, being a gay president is a different matter frankly. Until the time comes, if this certain person is honest about his sexuality, we cannot guess what the response will be.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 05-12-2013, 02:57 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,603
I believe in, and support, the right of same sex couples to marry, and I would like to think that if the heir to the British crown were gay, that that person could live an openly gay life with their partner. I would also hope that if that monarch had a child with the assistance of a surrogate, in the case of a king, or donor, in the case of a queen regnant, that the child would remain in the succession, for it would carry the important genes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 05-12-2013, 03:08 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
The problem, so to speak, with surrogates or donors comes down to legitimacy. On a very basic level, the idea of an heir has to meet two requirements:
1. They have to have the so-called royal genes
2. They have to be legitimate (either born in wedlock, or born out of wedlock but subsequently legitimized by marriage in some cases)

Personally, I have no problem considering someone born via a surrogate or donor to be legitimate so long as their parents (at least one who contributed genetic material to the child) are married. But I don't know what the stance is from a legal standpoint.

Does anyone know what the various rules regarding the inheritance of peerages when surrogate/donor children are involved? I.E. if the Earl of X is married to the Countess of X and they have a son, Hon. Y, is Y able to inherit the Earldom if he was born via a surrogate, but using his father's swimmers?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 05-12-2013, 03:24 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The problem, so to speak, with surrogates or donors comes down to legitimacy.
Any issue regarding legitimacy could easily be cured by legislation. As long as a child is the biological child of the monarch, I see no reason why it should be discriminated against solely on the basis that it was conceived using a turkey baster.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 05-12-2013, 03:26 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

Does anyone know what the various rules regarding the inheritance of peerages when surrogate/donor children are involved? I.E. if the Earl of X is married to the Countess of X and they have a son, Hon. Y, is Y able to inherit the Earldom if he was born via a surrogate, but using his father's swimmers?
The child is the child of the mother that carries it. So if a surrogate is used and the fertilised egg stays in the womb, that child would inherit nothing. It could then be adopted by Earl and Countess but then adoption rules take over. Query would be if the fertilised egg was implanted in the Countess' womb, where would that stand legally.

Perhaps in this case it comes down to the birth certificate.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 05-12-2013, 03:38 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 4,971
That's a long speech, Wayne James

However, you still don't address the core issue: It's all about feelings.

This is not about rights, or the law being changed or what is politically correct.
This is about the irrational double standard the vast majority of people who are in favour of a monarchy has about their monarch or future monarch. (And elected presidents too for that matter).
I say again, people (including myself) are very conservative in regards to the person who is going to represent their country. Even more so when it's a monarch.

No one here has said that there will not or cannot be a homosexual monarch and that this monarch will have a same-sex consort. What I and other have said is: give it time. It won't happen tomorrow.

Let's turn the question around.
Wayne James, look into yourself and ask yourself whether you in honesty would accept that the next president of USA, the foremost representative of your country, is one of this:
A) An open transvestite, also when on the job?
B) A woman who proudly sports tattoos up and down her arms?
C) Have piecings in the face, for whatever reason?
D) Is a open believer in tarot cards and astrology and often consult this when pondering a question?
E) Who is an open sadist/masochist?
F) Who has more than one spouse? (Some religions allow several wives).
G) Who is a polyteist?
H) Who is a naturist (with plenty of photographic evidence)?
- And so on.

There are many people who fit into the descriptions of one or more of the above and they are all allowed to by law. But would you want this in your head of state?
You need not answer. But look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you would tolerate any of the above in your head of state.
I would have huge problems accepting any in the monarch of my country.

The progress of a country and the tolerance of people is not measured in the acceptance of a homosexual head of state, it's more complicated than that.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 05-12-2013, 06:14 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Posts: 146
Mh, aside from option D, nothing else has to do with the job. So what is the point?

Over here, the 3 most wellknown/powerful politicans are:
1. A woman - Angela Merkel, Chancellor
2. An openly gay man - Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister
3. A disabled man in a wheelchair - Wolfgang Schäuble Federal Minister of Finance
And it's not that germany is doing any better or worse because of this.
And people don't judge them because of what they are in their personal life.
Maybe this is because germans in general have become rather tolerant due to what we were guilty /are responsible for.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 05-12-2013, 06:44 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissJanet View Post
Mh, aside from option D, nothing else has to do with the job. So what is the point?
The private life and the appearance of a head of state is extremely important.
Why else would royals and politicians care so much about their image?

Imagine King XX showing up to a gala dinner in evening dress and tiara. Because that is a part of his identity and the way he feels comfortable. Anyway it's his right, there is nothing wrong with being a transvestite and those who disapprove are oldfashioned and intolerant. - But, what would you think? Would you accept it or say: "Okay, this is getting too far".

As for politicians consulting the stars or cards (option D), well beforehand all kings/leaders did that all the time, in fact they were expected to consult atrologers and oracles. Why not now?


ADDED:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissJanet View Post
Over here, the 3 most wellknown/powerful politicans are:
1. A woman - Angela Merkel, Chancellor
2. An openly gay man - Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister
3. A disabled man in a wheelchair - Wolfgang Schäuble Federal Minister of Finance
And it's not that germany is doing any better or worse because of this.
And people don't judge them because of what they are in their personal life.
Maybe this is because germans in general have become rather tolerant due to what we were guilty /are responsible for.
1. There have been female monarchs around for thousands of years. No problem. - Female presidents however is a novelty.
2. Iceland IIRC has a lesbian president. However, politicians and monarchs represent very different institutions. That's the key point.
3. A monarch in a wheelchair is hardly a problem with the current roles of royals. However, should a deaf and blind monarch abdicate? It's a question of how severe the disabillity is.

Let me make it clear from a personal point of view.
I don't care who people marry. As long as it's consentual. - (One particular ridicules argument against same-sex marriages is: what next? Should people be allowed to marry animals? Animals cannot give their consent, so that argument is beyond silly.)
Perhaps my own children will turn out to be homosexual or transexual (they haven't so far showed any indication in that respect but for the sake of argument). I will admit it will take a little getting use to seeing my son or daughter kiss someone of the same sex or seeing my son in dress and make-up. But it'll hardly rock the boat and as long as they are happy I'm happy.
However, I also freely admit that this tolerance does not extend to the foremost representative of my country. I.e. my monarch and her family. That's where the double standard kicks in. - Does that make me a hypocrite? Intolerant? Or just human?

Again, legislation about sexual tolerance is not a measure of how progressive a country or a population is.
Example: Incest is allowed in a number of countries. Would you accept a king (or president) whose spouse is his sister? And that they have children?
After all the Pharaos married their siblings. And the aristocracy beforehand were borderline incesteous, so why not now?
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 05-12-2013, 07:01 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
The private life and the appearance of a head of state is extremely important.
Why else would royals and politicians care so much about their image?
Being a politican is a job, you get voted or not. The fact that PR people try to make politicans seem more like royals is due to zeitgeist and nothing else.

I don't think you can compare that to be born to be a king/queen. It's apples and oranges.

Personally, I don't care what a politican is doing in her/his free time. I would love Olivia Jones http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Jones as head of state, she is intelligent and wellspoken and her being a transvestite would not harm anyone.

See Amanda LePore, she is crazy 8in the best sense of the word), and she is also a fine example of someone who followed a path without ever hesitating, doing what she felt was the right thing. Which is a valued quality for a politican.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 05-12-2013, 07:08 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 857
I guess it all boils down to 'as long as the person is mentally capable of leading the country', for me all of the items mentioned above (sexual orientation, gender, color) have nothing to do with the mental capacity of a person... but i'm sure there are people on this world who would disagree

Personally, i would only have a problem with a head of state who is excessively aggresive or violent, but there have been plenty of those in the past..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 05-12-2013, 09:00 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
Thank you for your interesting comments.

I am in total agreement that the concept of gay royals will become more acceptable with time. My point, however, is that in countries where marriage equality is currently the law, it should be acceptable NOW for gay royals to marry people of the same sex. People should not be required to put off living their lives until after they are dead.

In a free society, that which is not specifically proscribed by law is permissible by law. And in free societies, people are not authorized to impose their private morality onto other people. It is well-established in civilized Western societies that discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation--as is the case with discrimination based on race, color, or gender, for example--is wrong and should not be tolerated. It is as simple as that. And if we truly believe that discrimination on the bases identified above is wrong, then we should regard discrimination against a gay royal because of his decision to marry someone of the same sex as wrong.

When I board an airplane, I don't care whether the captain is gay or straight, has tattoos or not, is vegetarian or meat-eater, is male or female, is tall or short, or is Christian or Muslim. My only concern is that the captain be a qualified airplane pilot and that the airplane be in good operating order. Likewise, I could care less if my president has tattoos, has pierced ears, or has kinky sex withinin the confines of his bedroom. None of that is any business of mine, and none of that has any bearing on his ability to serve as president. What I look for in a president is his or her ability to lead the country. And to the extent that he or she does not look or act the way I do, so what? What does a tattoo have to do with the price of rice in China? Who died and made me God? When did my outlook on life become more "correct" or "valid" than someone else's? Who made me arbiter of morality?

People who insist that royals should conduct themselves in a "certain, particular manner" which is above and beyond that expected of "other," "normal" people have misplaced expectations, for royals (along with the rest of the aristocracy) are the one remaining group of people who do absolutely nothing (other than being born) to become who they are. Why expect "superior" behavior from people who were handed their status upon a platter? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I prefer to expect "superior" behavior from people who have achieved their status by their own doing. The concept of the aristocracy makes as much sense as assuming that the daughter of Whitney Houston would become a great singer because her mother was a great singer, or that the offspring of Usain Bolt would also become great sprinters....

I expect a prince to be knowledgeable of falconry, or to be proficient in the sports of fencing and dressage and archery. I expect a prince to know which fork to use at the dinner table or how to place his dinner napkin onto his lap. But I do not look to monarchy for my moral instruction. (And over the years, we have learned that it is problematic to expect morality from even clergy).

And it is precisely for that reason that many modern societies have chosen the path of secularism--knowing that whenever we mix government and politics with religion and morality, we are heading down a slippery slope. What "the Bible says" is a private, personal matter--not one to be imposed upon society at-large--unless, of course, one lives in a religious state.

The English monarch is the head of the Church of England. But perhaps it is time that the British people reconsider that concept. Comingling religion and matters of state may make sense when societies are homogenous--when everyone, for the most part, shares the same cultural heritage, looks alike, acts alike, thinks alike, and believes alike. But in complex, cosmopolitan societies, the concept of the state religion is particularly problematic--unless, of course, the indigenous, majority culture intends to impose its point of view upon the newcomer, the minority, the non-traditional....

Again, I am for people being able to attain their fundamental rights within THEIR lifetimes--not two or three generations later. Fundamental Rights are inalienable rights. And no one has the right to deny another person of those rights. The right to claim one's sexuality and to marry in a manner consistent with that sexuality is too basic, too fundamental, a right for other people--in a free society--to be able to dictate how those rights should be expressed. So if people don't want their gay male monarchs to wear evening gowns and tiaras, then they should revisit the concept of monarchy. In other words, if people want their leaders to act and look and behave in certain "accepted" and "acceptable" ways, then they should elect their leaders by popular vote--not have a system of leadership which is determined by birth, where there is NO TELLING how the leader will turn out.

Likewise, regarding having a "non-traditional" monarch representing a country on diplomatic missions, the same response applies: You get what you get when your system of leadership is based on birth, not on qualification. But that said, countries which do not acknowledge the Human Rights of the monarch at issue should not be engaged diplomatically. Gay Rights are Human Rights. And violations of Human Rights should not be tolerated--nationally or internationally.

I firmly believe that the issue of gay rights will become a non-issue within the next decade or two--just as race and gender are each day becoming non-issues. But just think of how much more quickly that day would become if even a prince has the courage to stand up for his rights. (Think of what Prince Albert of Monaco would have done for race relations had he had the courage to marry his black lover instead of bearing a child with her out of wedlock). Of course, there will always be bigots and the "intoleratti".... But the good thing is that unlike the past, where the bigot was the norm, the current path of human tolerance suggests that the bigot is quickly becoming the exception. Thank God. And kudos to the Human Spirit.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 05-12-2013, 10:21 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
I am in total agreement that the concept of gay royals will become more acceptable with time. My point, however, is that in countries where marriage equality is currently the law, it should be acceptable NOW for gay royals to marry people of the same sex. People should not be required to put off living their lives until after they are dead.
You are too impatient. You cannot expect people, even in countries were same-sex marriages are allowed to conform to your values overnight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
In a free society, that which is not specifically proscribed by law is permissible by law. And in free societies, people are not authorized to impose their private morality onto other people. It is well-established in civilized Western societies that discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation--as is the case with discrimination based on race, color, or gender, for example--is wrong and should not be tolerated. It is as simple as that. And if we truly believe that discrimination on the bases identified above is wrong, then we should regard discrimination against a gay royal because of his decision to marry someone of the same sex as wrong.
Aren't you imposing your moral and sexual values on people who do not agree with you or have a more nuanced view?
It's not black and white. A monarch is the foremost representative of a country, based on history, tradition and the very nature of a monarchy. Sorry, but there are rules a monarch has to follow. Alternatively he/she can abdicate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
When I board an airplane, I don't care whether the captain is gay or straight, has tattoos or not, is vegetarian or meat-eater, is male or female, is tall or short, or is Christian or Muslim. My only concern is that the captain be a qualified airplane pilot and that the airplane be in good operating order. Likewise, I could care less if my president has tattoos, has pierced ears, or has kinky sex withinin the confines of his bedroom. None of that is any business of mine, and none of that has any bearing on his ability to serve as president. What I look for in a president is his or her ability to lead the country. And to the extent that he or she does not look or act the way I do, so what? What does a tattoo have to do with the price of rice in China? Who died and made me God? When did my outlook on life become more "correct" or "valid" than someone else's? Who made me arbiter of morality?
The pilot does not represent you or your country. The pilot does however represent his/her company and if he doesn't follow the guidelines of that company he'll get the boot.
You say you don't care about your presidents appearance?
Okay. Imagine President Obama showing up to an international summit in a dress and make-up? Because we can agree that there is nothing wrong with being a transvestite and he has a basic right to wear a dress, right?
You may have no problems with that, but I can assure you that most of your fellow Americans will object to that. The rest of the world will certainly find it - interesting.
Or Mrs. Obama going on a state visit, with tatoos up and down her arms and legs, fully visible. - Considering the critisism Michelle Obama has been subjected to for much less than this, I can imagine there would be something of an outcry, also from Americans who voted for Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
People who insist that royals should conduct themselves in a "certain, particular manner" which is above and beyond that expected of "other," "normal" people have misplaced expectations, for royals (along with the rest of the aristocracy) are the one remaining group of people who do absolutely nothing (other than being born) to become who they are. Why expect "superior" behavior from people who were handed their status upon a platter? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I prefer to expect "superior" behavior from people who have achieved their status by their own doing. The concept of the aristocracy makes as much sense as assuming that the daughter of Whitney Houston would become a great singer because her mother was a great singer, or that the offspring of Usain Bolt would also become great sprinters....
Well, permit me to be frank. Then it's because you really don't understand how it is to live in a monarchy.
Nowadays royals are living role models. They personify a countrys history and culture, they are the living face of a country to the rest of the world but first and foremost they are a rallying point in times of change and in times of need. Which means that they have to be accepted by as wide as segment of the population as possible.
That's why appearance is so important.
The concept of royals being people who live a priviledged life without having to achieve anything is hopelessly oldfashioned. Royals nowadays have to work hard, especially on their image. - Or they'll be voted out of office and replaced with a republic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Again, I am for people being able to attain their fundamental rights within THEIR lifetimes--not two or three generations later. Fundamental Rights are inalienable rights. And no one has the right to deny another person of those rights. The right to claim one's sexuality and to marry in a manner consistent with that sexuality is too basic, too fundamental, a right for other people--in a free society--to be able to dictate how those rights should be expressed.
Again, you are being too impatient.
The sexual rights argument are interesting.
- I love my sister, I have always loved my sister and she loves me, I want, ney, I demand the right to marry her and have children with her. Should I get that right?
It's legal in some countries and there is no particular danger for the children, unless the incest is systematic over several generations.

- I want to marry and have children with my fourteen year old niece and even though I'm a middleaged man myself she loves me, she says so herself. Until fairly recently that was legal in most countries and had been for thousands of years, it's still legal and indeed common in some countries. Will you deny us that right?

Would you like to see me as the head of state of your country and my wife, who is also my sister, as your first lady?
- Or is that going a little too far?
Be careful about judging a society on sexual rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Likewise, regarding having a "non-traditional" monarch representing a country on diplomatic missions, the same response applies: You get what you get when your system of leadership is based on birth, not on qualification. But that said, countries which do not acknowledge the Human Rights of the monarch at issue should not be engaged diplomatically. Gay Rights are Human Rights. And violations of Human Rights should not be tolerated--nationally or internationally.
Well, in that case you will have to sever the diplomatic ties with practically all monarchies. Because all monarchies I know have legislative guidelines to who can be a monarch and their rights and limitations.
You seem to misunderstand what it is to be a monarch. The monarch in European monarchies can do whatever their subjects can, but they cannot do it and at the same time expect to remain on the throne regardless. - That's up to their subjects.

A monarchy is a balance act, a deal if you will, between the monarch and the subjects.
"We, the people, acknowledge you to be our sovereign and grant you certain priviledges. In return we want the show to run according to our guidelines. If you won't you abdicate or get booted out of office".
Being a monarch nowadays is not a right, it's a priviledge, granted by the people. That's important to keep in mind.

All European monarchs have the right live with someone of the same sex, and often marry as well, but the monarchs do not have the rights to be a monarchs at the same time. That is up to their subjects, regardless of the legislation.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 05-12-2013, 11:50 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Again, you are being too impatient.
The sexual rights argument are interesting.
- I love my sister, I have always loved my sister and she loves me, I want, ney, I demand the right to marry her and have children with her. Should I get that right?
It's legal in some countries and there is no particular danger for the children, unless the incest is systematic over several generations.

- I want to marry and have children with my fourteen year old niece and even though I'm a middleaged man myself she loves me, she says so herself. Until fairly recently that was legal in most countries and had been for thousands of years, it's still legal and indeed common in some countries. Will you deny us that right?

Would you like to see me as the head of state of your country and my wife, who is also my sister, as your first lady?
- Or is that going a little too far?
Be careful about judging a society on sexual rights...
I am not understanding your analogy between homosexuality, incest and pedophilia? I'm actually finding it rather offensive... But I'm sure that wasn't your intent.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 05-12-2013, 11:51 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 840
I guess Wayne James need to spend a couple of weeks on TRF and go through all the discussions to have an understanding how people perceive the royals, and what is expected of them..
He seems to have very little idea of that.
He is seeing everything from the eye of a fundamental rights activist, from the far left end of even the American "freedom" way.
The points he is repeating over and over--"Society has accepted, so whats the problem".."Everyone has his own personal choice".."We should worry how the monarch leads us, not how he lives"..are all too good in a book of gay activism..But reality is much far and the journey is much slow... Rushing only makes things worse.
__________________

__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Silvia's Family and Siblings - The Sommerlaths NJRedDevils King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 43 04-05-2014 05:42 AM
Precedence - Who Outranks Who? Huddo Royal Ceremony and Protocol 90 06-12-2013 05:56 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge style fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]