Anthony has great post up about the debate on gay marriage. It's actually one of the best posts I've ever read. You should check it out.
Filed under Miscellaneous
Album Of The Month
Rush
Fly By Night
Pick Up Your Own Copy
Links
Search
About
If You Can't Do Something Smart, Do Something RightFreedom
The Alliance to Restore the Republic
We Have Assumed ControlWednesday Hero
What Is Wednesday Hero?
Get A Copy Of The Post
3/5 Darkhorse Memorial
7 comments:
It was quite comprehensive.
My main concern with the debate is that the anti-gay marriage side tends to argue biblically. Obviously I have nothing against the bible, but it means that they won't discuss the issues involved.
I think that there's something important, said back in the 5th century by the Irish monk Pelagius, which these people need to think on:
"to be able to do good is the vestibule of virtue, and to be able to do evil is the evidence of liberty."
What he meant by this was that true virtue doesn't exist without the liberty to do otherwise.
In other words, the Christians who want to legislate against the "sin of homosexuality" are not doing themselves any favours. "Enforced virtue" is not virtue.
I respect your opinion, but a commentary that says civil unions are ok is wonderful on face value. But he does not explain himself at all. What is the difference in his mind between civil unions and marriage. if there are no differences (except one is a ceremony performed in a church) then he is only proving to damn his own argument that marriage of gays would damage society.
An odd commentary in my opinion, but I give him credit for being 'partially open-minded' (which leaves him at being a little more than closed minded).
That's also a good point - Christians don't protest against Hindu or Taoist weddings, so why do they protest against homosexual weddings?
Basically, the only thing the homosexuals want (unless they're religious) is the marriage certificate, and the rights attached. And on the civil level, that's all a marriage is. Everything is window dressing.
Look, you'll never satisfy everyone. It's impossible. Homosexuals say they want the same rights and benefits that hetero couples have and the opponents of same-sex marriage have differing opinions as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. Civil unions are the best compromise. Gay couples get legal recognition which pleases them and it's not legally a marriage, which pleases opponents. Of course you'll still have some who still won't be pleased on both side but that takes me back to beginning of this post. You'll never satisfy everyone.
Civil unions are the best compromise.
A little phrase keeps running through my head whenever I hear the words "civil union":
'Cause we all saw how "separate but equal" institutions worked for black America.
The big problem with civil unions is that you've suddenly got one law for the heterosexuals and one law for the homosexuals, meaning that they can very easily be treated as sub-class citizens in that respect.
Well, first of all marriage isn't a civil right. It's not even a right. Second, that same argument of yours could be applied to polygamy. Should polygamy be legal? Because if you legalize one form of alternative lifestyle, gay marriage, legally you'd need to legalize all forms. Don't want their civil rights to be violated. Because there would be challenges. And that's the main argument by the non-religious opponents of same-sex marriage. Myself included.
I never mentioned civil rights.
I was merely pointing out that if you say "heterosexuals have to do things this way" and "homosexuals have to do things this way", it leads to the possibility that homosexuals will be treated in a same way that blacks were in relation to whites back before Martin Luther King.
Post a Comment