|
i'm not entirely against granting gays a sort of civil union status that gives them the same tax breaks and rights that a marriage does, but i think it is ludicrous to call that relationship a marriage. a marriage is a personal/social/legal bond between a man and a woman. it is NOT anything between 2 people of the same sex. that is how it has been defined since the birth of our language. why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?
Scipio:
when you say that the government has no right to legislate sexual behavior but list those caveats that you deem to be acceptable, you are just doing what those who you are arguing against are doing. (even though i personally agree with your list) you denounce their belief system, only because yours has one less bullet point in its description. there are some who have fewer/different ones than you and have the same legitimacy to enforce something completely different to yours under that logic.
Also... i'm genuinely confused where point number 4 comes into the argument. Could you develop that more for my benefit?
__________________
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
|