Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
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.
|
One could argue that in the beginning there were no laws preventing or promoting gay marriage. While it may not have been taken away, it was never offered on the table like it is today. We are talking about potentially changing the law to fit in a group who is in the infancy of social acceptance. Rules have to be rewriten every once in a while to accomidate evolution (if you want to call it that) of the social circumstance. This is an opportunity for one such rewrite. If society is ready (i.e. enough voting people accept homosexuality), it'll pass. If not, then the supporters suck it up, ragather our efforts and try again tomorrow.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
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.
|
I understand what you are trying to say, but a lot of the time people who are percieved as ignorant or expendant because they are not properly understood. If the though process was better understood, then you could adapt your explaination to better fit what thery might udnerstand. Obviously there are a lot of stupid people out there, but if most people mean well I don't see how we have to ignore peoples opinions. Even stupid people can have good ideas.