Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
(Post 222701)
So you recognize that homosexuals likely won't marry someone of the opposite gender, and that the church has asked them not to, and still maintain that they have a real choice? That is just silly. Put it this way: if the government were to ban all sex except for homosexual sex, would you really have a choice to have sex? Of course not. And you know it.
|
There is no box on the marriage application form that asks people if they are gay, and advises them (or worse, prohibits them) from getting married.
Your argument that the "right" isn't "real" because you've decided the social pressure is too much is unpersuasive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
(Post 222701)
Marriage is a right. As a right, the denial of that right must be due to a legitimate government interest. The burden of proof is on those who would deny the right. Even if the burden were on homosexuals, you would still have problems. There is no evidence that homosexual marriage destroys society or the family, particularly since heterosexual marriage is permitted and it results in divorce over 50% of the time. Homosexuals getting married are statistically more likely to be faithful partners, which is also good for society, particularly with AIDS being so prevalent among the homosexual community. On the flip side, you don't have any legitimate reasons (other than "tradition" spanning back a few decades), which is why you are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.
|
I call bull on your made-up stats, and I question the methodology of any study you might have to back them up.
I don't know what you mean when you say marriage is a right. Like driving, voting, or any other privilege of citizenship, it comes with reasonable limitations placed on it by the state. It's open and available to all people subject to those limitations.
And the long-standing definition of marriage does indeed count for something, even though you think it only goes back "a few decades."
|