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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.