you asked for feedback... here it is.
the most feeble part of your argument is that most of your premises are based upon the false idea that something is being taken away from people when in fact what you desire has never been granted to begin with.
the reason the government has a say in deciding the definition of marriage is that it is a legal contract between two (at least it's two right now, we'll see about next month) people. tax codes, property rights, estates and wills are all based on the family unit and its composition. even if you argue that the government has no place in legislating ANY amount of moral conduct there are immense legal and economic repercussions that are indisputably the domain of the state.
also, i would argue against your agreement with mr. zuck. sometimes people's opinions are based on nothing but ignorance and/or expediency. just because someone says that they hold a particular opinion doesn't mean they've spent a split second of genuine thought in forming that opinion. now perhaps mr. zuck was including the understanding of another person's ignorance as a part of understanding why they hold it... but hearing similar things come from my personal acquaintances makes that seem unlikely.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
Last edited by irateplatypus; 02-09-2005 at 10:36 PM..
|