Society as a whole... no. The country went to war with itself over the first issue. And how about civil rights? Society didn't decide to change that, the courts had to step in to do the right thing.
Society as a whole... no. The country went to war with itself over the first issue. And how about civil rights? Society didn't decide to change that, the courts had to step in to do the right thing.
I've said it a thousand times before on this forum, I'll say it again - morals are subjective. It is not a moral issue. It is a legal issue, a rights issue.
I already posted a thorough piece covering your idea of people choosing to be gay, and again, to say nothing of the research indicating that it is genetic, not a choice. You may wonder about those who stay in the closet, in which case you need look no further for the cause than people like you, people like Henderson and McKinney, or other forms of social stigmatization. Now, if you are willing to concede that there is no choice in the matter, then we are done here, because if you would then still seek to discriminate against homosexuals, you open the door to discrimination of others (blacks, women, et cetera).
Desire is enough to justify one's actions, if it does not violate the rights of others. If two heterosexual individuals wish to engage in consensual sex, they desire to engage in consensual sex, it is considered normal and acceptable. Why is that different for homosexuals? If two heterosexual individuals desire to be married, it is considered normal and acceptable. Why is that different for homosexuals? Because marriage is a sacred union between man and woman? That argument is inherently flawed - it is the secular codifying of a religious sacrament.
In at least one of your previous posts, you have posited that you may find a coworker attractive, you may desire to have sex with her, but you wouldn't, because you are married. That argument does not actually say anything against using desire to justify one's actions. You chose to enter a contract with your wife to abstain from relations with anyone else. Totally different.
It is not a belief for homosexuals. It is who they simply are, and you would seek to deny them their rights as equal human beings. There is everything wrong with your belief that people should live as their physically-born gender, including seeking relations only with the opposite sex. It is not a choice, humans are attracted to whoever they are attracted to. I would guess that you find your wife beautiful. I have never seen a picture of her, and I am not asking for that, but I might not find your wife particularly attractive. We all have our "type", what we like, and why is it so hard to acknowledge that some people believe their "type" happens to have the same gender as them?
That you have billions to support your view does nothing to help it or to hurt it. China has a billion people that think communism is pretty awesome. Does that make them right? Well, I don't want to start another massive war here with the local communists, but no, it doesn't. America has a few million people that think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim space-alien or whatever nonsense. Does that make them right? No, it doesn't. North Korea has millions of people who think Kim Jong Il was born on a sacred mountain to the accompaniment of rainbows. Does that make them right? No, it doesn't.
Marginally. It is still their concern, not yours. How does it affect you that John and Ed are getting married? More aptly, how does it harm you that John and Ed are getting married?
You're projecting ridiculous nonsense. What is wrong with tolerance and open-mindedness?
Are you forgetting that society could simply overturn the court and amend the constitution if it wanted to? In the end society as a whole can and does determine what is acceptable behavior.
What changed is that as a society we realized that legal distinctions based on what you are is always unjust. Legal distinction based on what you choose to do (behavior) is OK, it's just a matter of deciding what those distinctions are.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
That's what this is. Heterosexuals are legally allowed to marry someone they desire, while homosexuals are not. The legal distinction is rooted in what we are.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
No, it's a legal distinction over behavior, not what you are. Saying something is "rooted" in what you are is like saying "my wanting to marry 5 people at the same time is rooted in what I am". It might be, but the behavior is subject to legal distinction.
For 100 years the Federal Government has repeatedly refused to define Marriage, and refused to intervene in state matters concerning Marriage. Check the case law.
It does not matter what the definition of marriage is. So states should start refusing to honor marriages from other states if that is what they want to do.
It does not matter what the definition of marriage is. So states should start refusing to honor marriages from other states if that is what they want to do.
Last edited:
You really want states to get into pissing matches with each other? It's called full faith and credit.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
No, it's not like that at all. You may want to marry 5 women, but can marry any one of them. I may want to marry 5 guys, but cannot marry any of them. It's a legal distinction based on gender.. which is part of what we all "are".
You and other heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person you want to marry... I and other homosexuals are not. The legal distinction is in the genders of those involved, which is about as inborn of a trait as there is... and is just as wrong as deciding which ethnicities may marry.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter