i don't pretend to have citeable evidence that homosexuality has a detrimental effect on society as a whole. my post said that i'm sure you or anyone else does not have evidence to the contrary. both sides say those things so matter-of-factly when no one knows for sure. it's just another example of demagoguery.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
The problem is that no one is advocating the changing of the fundamental make-up of the basic unit of all culture and society. I assure, this will not stop straight people from getting married and you'd have to have an odd relationship with your wife if two guys getting married effects it. During your formative years, how often did the genitalia of your parents come into play?
|
right... because the difference between men and women starts and stop at their genitalia? you don't believe that any more than i filtherton. as for the rest of it... i think my sig sums up my position better than i could alone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
As a general rule i would say that laws that are only in place based on morality should be reexamined. Laws should serve the function of promoting order and striking an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the people as a whole. To often, morality amounts to what the loudest person/people in the room think/s. Sometimes when morality is codified it is nothing more than state sponsored foolishness, i.e. slavery, prohibition, prohibition of inter-racial marriage.
|
ok. but if you're going to take that stance... then you must also allow for child pornography, public nudity in all circumstances, no boundaries on decency in mass media... and the elemination of all manner of morally guided law. how can that be? because you would be taking your moral standard and enforcing it on someone else... the exact thing you are condemning in others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
and... If a church decides that it wants to marry gay people and you oppose their efforts, you are limiting their religious freedoms, it's as simple as that.
|
so if i oppose the church doing something i'm limiting religious freedom, yet someone opposing my opposition is innocent? seems like a one-way street to me.