You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.
Quote:
|
The sad fact remains that once you knock down a pillar of society such as the definition of marriage it will rapidly become corrupted by having any number of 'consenting adults' demanding they too, be legally allowed to 'marry'. The authorities will have no choice but to grant the demands because the definition of marriage will have been permanently altered. It will then mean whatever we want it to mean and thus be rendered meaning-less. In other nations where this has been tried, the marriage rate drops considerably. Co-habitation and children with permanently absent fathers abound because men and women have little incentive to legally 'marry' when the term itself has become empty and can include polygamists, relatives and of course, homosexuals. None of this is good for a stable society based on families.
|
That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. Any "man" that wouldn't be a responsible father and marry his child's mother, simply because he feels that the act of marriage has been tainted by gay people being allowed to do so is beyond ridiculous. He puts more value in his version of what the word means than in the well being of his child and it's mother. And you want to blame that on gay marriages. Oh my God, Jim. You can't be serious. I've given you valid, legal reasoning, and you come back with that. You know what, you come up with scientific "proof" that everyone is born heterosexual, and maybe some folks will agree to let your amendment go forward so that you can custom taylor things to suit your beliefs. You can't do it because the simple fact is that some people are born homosexual, whether you like it or not. If you are too afraid to admit this fact, then that's your personal issue. Heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals, and vise-versa. You are still going on the idea that homosexuals are bad, and even refer to their behavior as "deviant". Who the hell died and gave you the right to decide what kind of sexual behavior between legal American citizen adults is deviant? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's deviant. What makes this a great country is that someone like you, with a very narrow view of what is and is not acceptable, cannot dictate your beliefs over the masses. This country offers equal rights to all, INCLUDING their consensual sexual behavior among adults. There are a few oddball 19th century laws that haven't been overturned yet in a few remote southern counties, which every man I know has broken (including you, I'd be willing to bet), but by and large, sexual behavior between consenting adults is a matter of choice, and whether or not you agree with it doesn't make any one form better, or more or less deviant than the other.
Quote:
|
Homosexuals do not qualify under this perfectly logical and time-tested definition (marriage requires a male and a female) that no culture has ever seriously questioned because it's simply a recognition of who we are and how we are made.
|
That's a nice theory, but the justices have already spoken. Again, "
Intrinsic in the right of personal liberty,the court said, is "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up children."
Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."
Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman.
I can't believe I'm having this argument.
I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet.
Take care,
~Chris
