|
|
#12
11-08-2004, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Right to have a Gay Marriage
"Yeah, I think so, because if it is in fact a choice, then part of making that choice is knowing that the lifestyle you choose will be one that doesn't contain marriage."
This seems like circular logic to me. We can penalize a person for a choice because they already know that such a choice entails a penalty. For me, i would only attach penalty to a choice if i had a reason for the penalty- ie that choice was one that infringed on (or was likely to) another person's rights. For example drunk driving. 
|
|
#13
11-08-2004, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Right to have a Gay Marriage
[ QUOTE ]
For me, i would only attach penalty to a choice if i had a reason for the penalty- ie that choice was one that infringed on (or was likely to) another person's rights. For example drunk driving. [/ QUOTE ] hmmm.... interesting....this is sort of the libertarian view on things though, right?
|
|
#14
11-08-2004, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Right to have a Gay Marriage
I live with my girlfriend. We've been together for 5 years. We are able to, but choose to not, have children. I don't plan on having kids in the future. I like cats. I sometimes use multiple hair products on the same day. My girlfriend has been known to play softball and listen to Indigo Girls on occasion. I prefer that my belt match my shoes.
Why can I get married to my girlfriend, but my buddy Mark, who's probably more like you and less like me, and his partner Raj, is not allowed? How would Mark be hurting anyone?
|
|
#15
11-08-2004, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: marriage is something we force on sinners
[ QUOTE ]
Let's cut the crap. People are not inclined to get married. It is not people's desire to get married, but marriage itself, which has earned the respect of society. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this statement. Our society feels the traditional family structure is the best and uses the institution of marriage to promote it as such. Our society tolerates other family structures such as single parants, divorcees, gay couples, etc but it does not promote them. The reason the gay community is opposed to civil unions and is insistant on gay marriage is that they are looking for some sort of validation from the rest of society for thier family structure. The gay community is trying to put the gay family structure on the same level of the traditional family structure. Family structures are not equal and society has no obligation to reckognize them as such. If you feel gay marriage should be allowed and promoted the same way traditional marriage is, why should the state stop there. Will not polygamist, polyandrist, incestists(if thats a word), etc be disenfranchised? Stu
|
|
#16
11-08-2004, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Right to have a Gay Marriage
It comes down to witholding a benefit from a group of individuals to achieve a moral goal. In some legal systems, this is a definition of discrimination.
A secondary question is then whether or not you want a particular set of morals guiding a system of law. -Diplomat
|
|
#17
11-08-2004, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Right to have a Gay Marriage
[ QUOTE ]
Why can I get married to my girlfriend, but my buddy Mark, who's probably more like you and less like me, and his partner Raj, is not allowed? How would Mark be hurting anyone? [/ QUOTE ] I dunno [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#18
11-08-2004, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Right to have a Gay Marriage
[ QUOTE ]
A secondary question is then whether or not you want a particular set of morals guiding a system of law. [/ QUOTE ] If there wasn't a set or morals guiding the system of law, then what would be deemed illegal? I have heard people on here argue(but not advocate) that child molestation isn't illegal because peoples minds work in a different way, and that they shouldn't be punished for that.
|
|
#19
11-08-2004, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the way i see it...
people on here think that there is no "right" to a gay marriage because it is not written in the constitution, but often times using common sense may be the best way to figure this one out. The same people who would have said that gays have no "right" to marry would argue blacks have no "right" to sit at a white lunch counter or drink from a white drinking fountain because it is not explicitly given in the constitution. However, many of us might recognize the old Declaration of Independance, a sort of mission statement for the United States, which says,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Between "all men are created equal" and "they are endowed [the right to] the pursuit of happiness" we realize that it might be about time to grant homosexuals the same rights as all other people... rj
|
|
#20
11-08-2004, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the way i see it...
The right to marry the opposite sex, isn't the same as the right to marry the same sex. It's not even a correct use of the word.
I understand why gay people hate religion as much as they do, but if you want regious people to respect you, you are going to have to respect their beliefs and customs as well. I find it funny that Unions aren't good enough for the gay community. It has to be marriage, which happens to be from religious origins. Something they tend to hate.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
