In my last thread on this topic, I asked people to give me a convincing argument against gay marriages. Despite their false definitions, I think I got some good reasons.
The issue with the pro-gay marriage crowd is that they came at this topic from an emotional point of view. Their first instance was to compare it to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Well, the civil rights movement was (mainly) a movement to enforce Federal legislation against bigotry. In fact, the civil rights movement came about as a result of the Civil War, which, again, was fought over states' rights versus federal rights. The federal rights that I'm talking about were written in the Constitution as a result of the internation declaration on the rights of man, one of which was that all men are created equal.
Hence, the emotions that the pro-gay advocates are relying on are based on legal-enforcement precedents.
As for the anti-gay marriage crowd, though their definitions reeks of bias, they stand on firm legal and moral ground. First off, attraction to the same sex is not unnatural. In fact, though it encompasses only 10%-15% of the natural world, it is very much natural. Hence, I would call same-sex attraction a natural aberration because of its minority status and its anti-pro-creationist way of life. Furthermore, gay animals are accepted within their group. In fact, aside from our larger brains, it is our philosophical morals and dogmas that differentiates us other animals. It is our standings (laws, religion, etc...) that makes humans less inclined to accept what is wholly acceptable among other animals. What many fear is while homosexuals enjoy the same declaration on the rights of man, accepting this "natural aberration" would bring us closer to the animals, destroying our morals and dogmas. If gay marriages are allowed to pass as normalcy, what would stop inter-family marriages, pedophilic marriages, inter-species marriages, or even parent-child marriages, simply because of the stated love and affection between the two? Their argument is that this would cause the breakdown of (human) society and reduce us to nothing more than those that slither or walk on all fours.
Is the argument fair? Well, the people will decide on the legality of gay marriages and whether or not it will open the doors to other things. Whether or not the Federal government or the states should be the final judge will make this not unlike the great debates that preceded the American Civil War.
There are enough threads regarding this subject already
The issue with the pro-gay marriage crowd is that they came at this topic from an emotional point of view. Their first instance was to compare it to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Well, the civil rights movement was (mainly) a movement to enforce Federal legislation against bigotry. In fact, the civil rights movement came about as a result of the Civil War, which, again, was fought over states' rights versus federal rights. The federal rights that I'm talking about were written in the Constitution as a result of the internation declaration on the rights of man, one of which was that all men are created equal.
Hence, the emotions that the pro-gay advocates are relying on are based on legal-enforcement precedents.
As for the anti-gay marriage crowd, though their definitions reeks of bias, they stand on firm legal and moral ground. First off, attraction to the same sex is not unnatural. In fact, though it encompasses only 10%-15% of the natural world, it is very much natural. Hence, I would call same-sex attraction a natural aberration because of its minority status and its anti-pro-creationist way of life. Furthermore, gay animals are accepted within their group. In fact, aside from our larger brains, it is our philosophical morals and dogmas that differentiates us other animals. It is our standings (laws, religion, etc...) that makes humans less inclined to accept what is wholly acceptable among other animals. What many fear is while homosexuals enjoy the same declaration on the rights of man, accepting this "natural aberration" would bring us closer to the animals, destroying our morals and dogmas. If gay marriages are allowed to pass as normalcy, what would stop inter-family marriages, pedophilic marriages, inter-species marriages, or even parent-child marriages, simply because of the stated love and affection between the two? Their argument is that this would cause the breakdown of (human) society and reduce us to nothing more than those that slither or walk on all fours.
Is the argument fair? Well, the people will decide on the legality of gay marriages and whether or not it will open the doors to other things. Whether or not the Federal government or the states should be the final judge will make this not unlike the great debates that preceded the American Civil War.
There are enough threads regarding this subject already
Facebook
Twitter