boneyboy0 wrote:There was no compelling reason to allow women to vote, neither was there a compelling reason to allow blacks to marry whites, that did not stop it happening. it happened because it was right.
I disagree. There is a very compelling reason to allow women to vote. Not to mention in a democracy voting is a right of all citizens. Again, marriage is not a right, but a license to social privileges.
As for blacks marrying whites, the reason is just as compelling as same race marriages. Children need a father and a mother, couples need protection from abandonment, and society needs citizens that come from stable homes. Lack of security in the home makes for trouble for society. That is the reason for extending
social privileges to marriages between man and woman.
And no it didn't happen "because it was right". It happened because a democratic majority decided it was right. Right now, the majority doesn't want it, but the minority wants it anyway.
Fear is the only reason some don't want this to happen, as we know, fear is the only thing to be scared of.
Fear of what? That's a bogus response. It's not fear of gays. "Homophobia" is often a misnomer. It's fear of undermining society. And that's a legitimate concern.
Most people don't want this to happen for religious reasons or from the perspective that marriage, as far as the law is concerned, is there to promote stable families. Some others have no rational basis for their point of view, but they are entitled to their opinions even if it is not based on reason.
"The only thing to fear is fear itself" is not really a good phrase. There are LOTS of things to be afraid of, and with good reason. Fear of getting eaten by a lion. Fear of catching a disease. Fear of offending a friend. These fears protect us from real dangers-- and dangers that are worthy of fear. Thus, fear itself should only be feared when it does the opposite what it is intended for.
But even though there may be some people who are acting out of fear-- fearing that society will be damaged-- that fear may be justified. And there are many who are not acting out of fear, but out of reason. There is reason to be opposed to same gender marriage.
there is no 'unless you are gay' bit at the end of the fourteenth amendment
Sure. But
there's nothing in the constitution that says marriage is a right of all citizens, either. Those practicing homosexuality are just as entitled to every right of citizenship as anyone else. They can vote, hold public office, have free speech, free press, free whatever, the same rights as everyone else. But not all citizens are afforded
equal privileges. The government grants priveleges in order to promote social welfare and marriage is a privilege granted to promote social welfare that same gender unions do not promote.
honour it and let democracy speak for ALL, not just the straight couples amongst us
Right. Democracy. Rule by the people. And people speak and people vote. So long as people vote not to allow same gender marriages then that's the way it should be. Those who practice homosexuality and those who are in favor of such practice can vote. They have all the same rights as everyone else. And it is your right to vote for them to have the same privileges as family producing unions, and mine to vote against such a thing.
If you are all for equal rights then how can you say gays should not be allowed to marry????
Because marriage is not a right.
and as for the social benefits, well, where are the social benefits of allowing child molestors to marry??????
I'd be all for preventing child molesters from marrying. As long as a person is not reformed I think society has an obligation to prevent children from being put into such a situation.
If marriage is, as you say, for biological reasons, then where does that leave the childless couples or the couples that can no longer have kids???? should they face mandatory divorce????
Couples with children have a much more difficult time filing for divorce. It's easy to get in or get out as long as their are no children.
This isnt about wether marriage is a right or not, american courts have already decided marriage IS a right
Only one court that I know of has made that determination. That's an interpretation of law that a lot of people, including other courts, disagree with. It is a legal precedent, but a
very controversial one.
this about WHO should be allowed to marry, and that should be EVERYONE!!
You are convinced marriage is a universal right. I don't agree. That's a basic disagreement which leads to completely different conclusions. If I thought marriage between any two persons was their right, then I'd be in favor of it being legal, although I would still be against the choice to do so.
I'm against racism. However, I believe a racist person should have the right to say racist things. That's freedom of speech. That's a right. I'm less against homosexual acts than I am against acts of racial hatred, but my reason for opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is based on a legal perspective and my understanding of the social contract.
People have a right to act as they wish so long as it isn't harming others. However, it's not a right to have other people treat you as you wish them to. It's not a right to have the government codify that special treatment so that the government will treat you differently than others.
Marriage does that. Marriage is a privilege. The Massachusetts's court that made that interpretation did so in accordance with emotion, not real logic and they defied democracy in doing it.
There's no law against the practice of homosexuality, but there is no cause to make a law to support the practice.
