Ionolast Ionolast

The Hypocrisy of Anti-Gay Marriage Proposals

▼

The Hypocrisy of Anti-Gay Marriage Proposals

"Proposals": lol

from JoeUser Forums
This morning on CNN, they asked viewers to email their opinions to the question: "Should there be a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?" One of the replies said, "People who want to ban gay marriage say it's to protect families and children. I would believe them if there was a ban on rapists, child molesters and wife beaters getting married."

Excellent point.

On a side note, marriage is not a right. It's a privilege. That's why a license is required.
7,486 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently not, since a lot of Americans when polled seem to think that civil unions are tolerable but calling it "marriage" isn't.

And this is the interesting thing. The way that language works is that things often have official names, and then names that people use in more informal speech. It hardly matters in the end what a thing is officially called (so both sides are wasting a lot of energy); if same-sex couples are only officially allowed civil unions (with all the legal rights of inheritance etc that they want), but decide to call them marriages anyway, who is able to 'police' this use of language?
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
if same-sex couples are only officially allowed civil unions (with all the legal rights of inheritance etc that they want), but decide to call them marriages anyway, who is able to 'police' this use of language?

Because deep in their heart of hearts, the pro-marriage people would know that they won.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's why I advocate civil unions for everyone and let the moral authorities deal with the moral issues. In the end, though, this is a state issue and the states should handle it. Marriage is not a right, and the 14th amendment shouldn't enter into it.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because deep in their heart of hearts, the pro-marriage people would know that they won.

I agree with this. Trouble is both sides claim to be the pro-marriage people.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Diawa:
but individuals should have the right to mutually decide who the partners will be. Beyond "punishing" same-sex couples for "not obeying the laws of God",


Then I'm sure you'll have no problem when the polygamists and intergenerational relationship organazations come to you for support?

If we are saying that marriage shouldn't be defined by traditional standards... what standards are we, as a society, willing to include in our quest for Tolerance uber alles?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey, Ted.

No, I don't "support" polygamy, intergenerational relationships or NAMBLA, for that matter. However, the keys for me are age of majority & free will. I have no moral objections to relationships entered into freely & willingly by consenting adults. That's not the same as advocating for them. Folks who have religious objections (or objections on other grounds) are free to forego such relationships themselves.

And, when you get right down to it, "society" is the result of individual choices freely made, not the other way around.