Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
The government denies people rights based on their actions all the time. If I am a pro football player, I don't have the right to spend the same percent of my income as someone who works at McDonald's. I don't have the same right as a woman to kill a child I help create. I don't have the same right to read certain classified documents as CIA agents. I don't have the same right to carry a gun everywhere that police are allowed.
|
you're examples don't really make much sense.
a football player can spend the same percent or more or less of their salary than a mcdonalds employee. it's their money, they can do what they want with it. it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
you don't have the right to choose an abortion or not because it's not your body. again, unrelated to this topic.
cia agents can see what they see becasue they've earned/been granted the clearance, and with a permit, you can carry a gun pretty much everywhere the police can.
the govt. currently grants rights (maybe priveliges is a better word?) to people when they get married. there is no reason for the govt. to deny those privelidges to a couple just because they're homosexual. marriage is a contract between two consenting adults, their gender should not make a difference.
you said in the post above that you think govt.'s place in modern marriage is about helping create an environment to promote family and stability? well, homosexuals can have kids. i don't know a single lesbian that couldn't go get knocked up if she wanted to. if we won't let them adopt, they can always have 'em naturally. so why not let lesbians get married?
now, fags can't have kids unless we let them adopt. but we don't want that now do we! afterall, they have a dirty lifestyle, and if we keep them from marrying, hopefully they're icky ways will just die out!
anyways, the govt. can deny rights when it has a compelling interest to do so. they have a good reason to deny people the 'right' to do certain things that harm others. but there is no compelling interest in denying gays the right to get married. the most compelling interest for them to do it is 'it's icky gross!' and that's not very compelling, is it?