Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
This brings us back to the argument regarding infertile couples. Should they be denied the right to marry? If, after marriage, they become infertile before the birth of a child, should their marriage be forcefully annulled?
|
Nope, because it's possible for an infertile couple to produce a child, thanks to modern science. There is absolutely, positively no way for a homosexual couple to produce children. What I can't understand is that if marriage isn't about producing children, then why wouldn't you agree to gay marriage without the child-producing benefits?
Quote:
|
You might want to bring this up to the Supreme Court. I recall something about the 14th Amendment, Section 1. Why are you sick and tired of people expecting our government and legislative bodies to adhere to the constitution?
|
The notion that everyone is treated equally is great in concept, but absolutely unatainable in praotce. You still neglect the fact that, as you sit here and read this thread, you're benefiting from a certain group of people not having the same privileges as you do. If you could ask the Supreme Court whether or not they believe that everyone should have the exact same rights and privileges as everyone else, they'll flat out tell you no. The fact that one group is discriminated against for the good of the majority is an integral part of any society.
Quote:
|
That may be because the main argument against gay marriage has come from the religious right? Where else does the argument that homosexuality is a deviance and an abomination come from?
|
The fact is that homosexuality has long since been considered taboo by many cultures throughout history. As NCB pointed out earlier, many African, South American, Asian, North American and European cultures openly condemned homosexuality. That's where the argument that homosexuality is a deviance and an abomination come from. Simply because the religious right, as you want to call them, are the most boisterous doesn't mean that they're the only opposition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
You notice I_L hasn't touched this. His arguments aren't aimed at the people who are actually affected by this. He's grandstanding to those who--by his own argument--really shouldn't give a damn. When it comes to actually getting into the shoes of someone whose life is dramatically impacted by this particular brand of bigotry, he's notably silent.
|
I haven't told anyone not to care. I find it funny that you tell me not to care because it doesn't concern me yet you don't take your own advice. Oh, and just for the record, there's a difference with empathy and agreeance. I can empathize all day long with homosexuals; That doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with gay marriage.
Quote:
|
Unlike, I'd wager, the anti-gay proponents in this thread, I actually know several gay people.
|
I'd like to take that bet, please
Simply because I oppose gay marriage doesn't mean that I have a problem associating or making friends with homosexuals.
Quote:
|
How is my day-to-day living tangibly impacted by it (beyond the intangible impact of being happy for my friends)? Maybe not much. But given that I_L has just demonstrated that nobody's who's not personally impacted can say it makes that much difference to them, why not do the thing that's more in keeping with the spirit of what our forebears fought and died for--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for EVERY American?
|
I never said that no one could care about anything which doesn't directly affect them. Just don't tell me that I can't care about whether or not gay marriage is legalized because it doesn't affect me when the same also applies to you. That just makes you a hypocrite.
By the way, our forefathers were bigots and slave-owners (In case you didn't know).