Quote:
Originally posted by jimf747
It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what the judge and jury thinks. And by the way, I don’t care what gay people think about my life style, they are a small minority in nature and the country. Minorities don’t get to rule over majorities’… simple fact of nature. In addition, Sodomy and such are the topics when it comes to the law, whether you like it or not. As for the comment concerning human worth and such…you are missing the essential point, you logic has no primary foundation to examine the idea of the word worth used in this context. You can’t even define the word without religion. The very fundamental idea of good and bad come from religion. When you say “good people”, then you must define what you mean by good, and then your definition is open to further definitions.
|
Minorities don't get to rule over majorities? Where were you when apartheid was around? Or when slaves outnumbered free men in the South?
It is true that what is 'good' is subject to interpretation. For example, to a racist 'good' is limited by race, ethnicity, etc. irregardless of behavior. In many religions, heaven is reserved for those practicing that religion, and no others will be 'good' enough, no matter what their behavior.
We have commandments from our god which state, 'thou shalt not kill', but in the same texts impose the death penalty and fight wars with the blessings of G-d. Does this mean that some killing is actually 'good'?
We do have laws against incest, and this is seen as both a moral decision and a decision for the social order to prevent inbreeding. We agree that children should be of a suitable age to have sex and marry, but what that age should be changes with society and the average age expectancy.
However, most people agree that homosexuality (as well as prostitution) have been around for thousands of years. In my opinion, that makes it a natural occurence. Passing laws against something which occurs naturally does not make any sense to me. It would be like outlawing albinos. The best example I can relate to was the practice of forcing left-handed people to become right-handed.
Quote:
|
In past societies, there was no sympathy for left-handed persons. Lefthanders International shares stories of children forced to change their dominant hand in fear for their life, their safety and their acceptance. As left-handedness was seen as a curse, children caught using their left hand for reaching and grabbing were often scolded and forced to use their right hand in order to make it dominant. This was an enormous effort for both parent and child. It is stated that to accomplish the change in handedness, the left hand would be tied behind the child's back, down at their side or across their chest to make it unusable for normal activities, forcing the right hand to take its place.
|
Toddlers Today Resources - Left Hand
Some people are homosexuals. They desire to enter into monogamous social bonding in the same manner as heterosexuals. This implies that they will pay taxes, open joint checking accounts, purchase real estate and engage in other activities which benefit society at large. We keep on hearing studies that marriage is better for society and the individuals. If this is so, including more people into the ranks of marriage would be a 'good' thing.
As far as 'civil unions' are concerned. Maybe we can call all marriages performed by civil officials 'civil unions'. We can reserve the word 'marriage' for civil unions performed by clergy. This would satisfy the equal protection clause since no class of people would be discriminated against. Since 'clergy' is a large class and an accomodating minister could always be found, gay couples could be married. Since the state is reinforcing the rights of religious groups to perform marriages, and even reserving the term for them, they have no cause for objection. Since heterosexuals joined by judges or Justices of the Peace would also be subject to 'civil unions' if not married by clergy, they would have an incentive to be sure that the classification is not discriminatory in any legal treatment.
BTW, there was an interesting article recently about states rescinding the recognition of common law marriages. This shows that states still have a great deal of discretion when it comes to marriage.