Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustJess
Actually, Marriage as we knew it is already ruined. As has been stated numerous times, we already have a 48% divorce rate. Gay people certainly can't fuck it up worse than that, can they? Leading us to the Pro-camp's claim:
|
I never said this, but since you brought it up...
Gay marriage would cause the divorce rate per year to increase by a sizeable margin. That is, of course, unless divorce would only be limited to heterosexuals.
(Those aren't my views, but could be considered a defense of the aforementioned premise.)
Quote:
Gay marriage won't screw up marriage - how would someone else's marriage affect you? You're not married to them! Leading to Against-Camp's next salle...
...If Gay marriage won't hurt anyone else, it won't help you, either, since you're straight. What do you care? Ahem, see Pro-Camp's next point
|
The "I don't care what someone else does as long as it doesn't bother me" argument is fundamentally flawed. Assuming that you're heterosexual, I could ask you what harm would come to you by not allowing homosexuals to marry and your answer would be "No harm". There's no tangible harm done to me by allowing homosexuals to marry and there is no tangible harm done to you by not allowing them marry. So why do either of us care?
Quote:
|
We're not saying that gay marriage will help US in particular (except Gilda, of course). We're saying that it is wrong to limit the civil rights of any group of people, and marriage is a CIVIL right (not just a religious one). We want equal rights for all, and all rights for all, not just those we like.
|
There is no such thing as equal rights for all. Since when has it become wrong to limit the civil rights of individuals? Since someone decided that gay marriage shouldn't be prohibited? It amazes me how people can completely ignore the fact that there are literally thousands of "Civil rights" which are prohibited to certain peoples, and a good majority of them are more important than whether or not gays are allowed to marry.
Quote:
Lots of hetero relationships do not result in children. By choice, and by natural occurence of inability to have children. Yet, they get to be married and enjoy all the civil rights associated with marriage.
Further, lots of hetero couples need a lot of medical/social help to have children. (I have a few friends who have gone down that road.) "Naturally" they should not be able to, but due to advances in science or the ability to adopt, they do have children. But they're allowed to be married and enjoy those civil benefits. Thus there is no biological reason for gay people to not be married with or without children (of one of them, or adopted).
|
I'll make this simple:
Marriage is a strictly human concept (Though some animals do mate for life).
The underlying premise of marriage is to produce offspring and to provide a stable environment in which to raise them.
Heterosexuals can produce offspring while homosexuals can't. While not all heterosexuals produce offspring in a marriage, many of them do. No homosexual can produce offspring.
Therefore, from a purely biological standpoint, there is no reason for two homosexuals to try to "mate" as they can't. Two homosexuals will
NEVER produce offspring.
Since two homosexuals can't mate and produce children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to giving homosexuals the right to marry while withholding the child-producing benefits from them.
By the way... The number of marriages which don't produce children are few and far between (I just thought you'd like to know) when compared the number of them that do.
Quote:
In terms of who we elect, yes. What products stay in business, yes. But for civil rights? No. All people must be treated equally under the law of the U.S. That is what we built this country on. "Hey, there are only two black people in this town, so they can just sit in the back of the bus." Uhhhh, no. Not anymore. Leading us to Against-Camp #5...
...Yes, yes it is. Rights are being denied to a particular group for no reason other than who they love. All people in the U.S. deserve equal treatment under the law. That's it.
|
I bolded the pertinent part. I'm sick and tired of the "All people must be treated equally under the United States Constitution!" argument, because that's a load of BS. You live in a country where people are denied basic rights-- Constitutionally, I might add-- Based on age, national origin, race, mental capacity, etc; Inequalities which, by the way, the majority of people live with and accept. But none of that matters. No! Let's instead claim that all groups are treated equally, save homosexuals.
Quote:
|
As for religion... religion needs to stay out of this. Religion is for the churches and temples and shrines. Religion is not for the courthouses or justices of the peace or the legislation. This is a civil issue. It should remain so.
|
Notice how the
ONLY people thus far to mention religion are those in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Why is that?