Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Now I understand what you were trying to say. "Gay marriage" seems to elevate homosexuals above the heterosexual marriages. The only reason we are mentioning marriages - specificly civil unions - between those of the same gender is becuase they are currently not allowed in 49 states, and some (including yours truely) interprit that as unfair and unequal treatment. As I see it, I am triyng to make sure no marriage is elevated above any other marriage. Are we fighting the same fight from different sides? I dunno.
|
Marriage, and the benefits that come with it, are (as far as the government is concerned) for ensuring that a child can be raised in as stable environment as possible by the child's biological parents. This was the argument (and judgement) in a recent case in Florida. I posted the link in another of my posts. Homosexual couples cannot produce children, that's not "bigotry" or me enforcing moralism on others, it's biological fact. That's why a man cannot marry a man, or a woman a women (at least in most states). Most of the things that come with marriage ARE allowed to gay couples, just not in the form of marriage. The ones that aren't are those that benefit a family, and help support the raising of children. I don't really care if some guy gets to see his dying boyfriend in a hospital. I'm not going to advocate it, but I'm not going to oppose laws that would enable (force?) hospitals to allow this either. Where I DO oppose the efforts is in granting benefits or tax benefits. Those are (ideally) reserved for couples that can produce children. Society (represented by the government [or an organization in the case of benefits]) is paying for those things, and society had better get something for their investment. Society has no care about paying for people to be marginally happier, but they do care about children being raised in the most effective, stable homes possible. That is why allowing those of the same sex to marry is wrong-I (as a taxpayer) am forced to subsidize something that doesn't benefit me or society as a whole.
Quote:
|
God is very clear on how to and not to treat your fellow humans. It is in the interpretation that people get lost. I could be wrong, but I think God wanted us to treat all people equally. LAOS, it is accepted by most that you should not force your beliefs on someone. If gay people are allowed civil unions, they are not forcing anything on you or me. If we prevent homosexual civil unions, we are directly forcing our beliefs on them.
|
It could be debated about the clarity of GOD (at least through biblical interpretation). Also, you can hate the sin, and not the sinner. I explained before how civil unions for homosexuals forces a burden on society. There are no beliefs being forced anywhere by not allowing them.
Besides, the whole "forcing beliefs" thing is useless to argue about anyways. Society constantly forces beliefs on people. That's what the whole legal code is about-forcing beliefs on people.
You tried to explain contradiction to me earlier. Maybe I can show my new grasp of the term. Here we have one statement:
Quote:
|
There is wrong then, and there is wrong now.
|
Followed by this:
Quote:
|
You have to take into account relative morality, as morality (like most things) evolves a bit with society.
|
How can wrong be absolute and relative? How can you determine which of the current (or past) wrongs are (were) relative or absolute?
Quote:
|
It's all wrong. All bashings are wrong, including gay bashings. No elevation or decention about it. Inclusion and specification is not = to elevation.
|
If they are all wrong, you shouldn't be arguing for "gay rights" you should be arguing for an end of violence period. And my point was that just showing a group is picked on doesn't mean it should get special treatment or labeled a minority. Just because people might dislike them doesn't mean their lifestyle needs government subsidization or special government protection. Unless you are willing to expand the same protections and benefits to the other groups I mentioned.
But (as is the case with a lot of things) I don't see any agreement possible. You will either see the triumph of civil rights over bigotry, or a setback in the continuation of past civil rights struggles. I will see either immorality further diverting energy away from true civil rights struggles, or society making a stand for morality. Neither is absolute right or wrong.