Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Humanity is oppresive.
I know you know the difference between child sacrifice and gay marriage. Rights guaranteed by the constitution seem to be limited when it is in the best interest of society, i.e. child sacrifice and polygamy(a questionable assertion), yelling fire in a theater. The question that continues to go unanswered is first, what is this greivous injury that gay marriage will supposedly inflict upon our society and second, why is it necessary to violate one of the foundations of our national identity in order to prevent it?
I hear you. For the record i think polygamy should be legal for the same reason that gay marriage should be legal. Here's the thing. If we interpret the constitution as protecting the religious freedoms of the minority and this issue somehow goes to court based on this idea and gay marriage becomes legitimized how do you think the most vocal critics of gay marriage would react? Already we have judges interpreting the constitution just like they're supposed to being denounced as "activists". I would predict a 99% chance of irony in the form of massive, religiously motivated public outcry.
I guess what i'm getting at is those who would have the supposed greatest interest in seeing that religious rights be protected are actually anti-religious freedom when it comes to freedoms that don't conform to their own dogma. "No shit", you say. This seems like a fundamently unsound way of going about things. How is it possible for some people to be anti gay marriage and pro-"ten commandments in the courthouse"?
|
There are too many reasons why people are for or against this issue to sum it up solely in religious terms I think.
Personally, I see the whole issue as a bunch of bullshit brought about by radicals on both sides to spout their beliefs in the politcally correct atmosphere of today. Certainly homosexuality has gained enough widespread acceptance to deny most anti-gay groups the ability to rail against its practice in any reasonable format. The pro-gay rights groups are equally hamstrung by society's unwillingness to take the issue as seriously as they want it taken.
If it was really only about getting the same rights for a gay couple as a hetero couple they could just as easily be pushing for civil unions. If it was just about denying rights to homosexual couples then there wouldn't be a significant portion of the population for civil unions but against gay marriage. Instead it becomes more a battle of recognition and blessing of the practice than about the rights of the couple.
Just my .02. FWIW, I am for civil unions that allow all the same rights as a hetero married couple and I would expect the same rules to apply to these unions that apply to hetero marriages (divorce, alimony, child support, living wills, etc).
Polygamy doesn't matter to me either way. If the husband (or wife) with the many spouses can reasonably support them all then I'm all for it. If, however, they end up relying on the government to support them then I'm against it. There are problems that arise from its recognition though. Let's say wife number three wants a divorce. Does that wife have to file against the husband and all other wives separately? How would a division of assets work? I'm sure it could all be worked out but it seems like a real PITA.