|
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS
fossten-You are coming from an incorrect premise and also operating via moral relativism. Can you not see the difference between right and wrong?
Yes, in this case I can.
The correct way to look at this is:
1. Marriage b/t man and woman was here first and is sanctioned by society as a norm.
- That is irrelevant, no one is trying to ban hetrosexual marriages and replace them with homosexual ones. It's simply an addition.2. Tax breaks and other benefits for marriage are for man and woman.
-You mean hetrosexual men/women.. Refer to my Jim Crow reference, people are people Fossten, it not like homosexuality is a crime.
3. Gays want to obtain benefits equivalent to hetero married couples without having to change their lifestyles and thus conform to societal norms.
-They shouldn't have to change thier lifestyle to fit someone else's view, like I said, they're not commiting a crime and they are not asking hetrosexuals to change their lifestyles.4. They are trying to redefine a societal norm for PURELY ECONOMIC benefit, i.e. obtain SPECIAL RIGHTS.
-No, they want to be treated equally.
5. They claim discrimination because they don't get those special rights, despite the fact that society in general doesn't approve what they want.
-They claim discrimination because that is exactly what it is. It's not a crime to be a homosexual and they are not asking for anything above the law.6. You fall for their rhetoric and succumb to the pressure because you don't want to be made to feel guilty about telling somebody else they are wrong.
-Wrong again, I do not feel guilty, I could care less what two other constenting adults do with each other. Once again you take the stand point that they are criminals asking for special rights to commit a crime. It just isn't the case.
And for what it's worth, divorce, although hated by God, was permitted in the old days. Homosexuality was NEVER permitted by God in the Bible. You make an illogical argument when you try to compare divorce to homosexuality. That's apples and oranges. You would do better to compare polygamy to homosexuality.
-it was hated by God but permitted? I believe since you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible. But the hated/permitted dynamic seems just a bit too convenient.
Would you approve of a new definition of marriage that states that marriage doesn't have to be between one man and one woman, thus making polygamy a legal status?
-Yes I would as long as it involved consenting adults, I wouldn't care to practice polygamy, but what right do I have to stop two or more adults from living the way they like as long as they do not harm anyone else.
Truthfully, I'm not overly concerned, I'm disgusted by it but I'm certain this will come to pass in time, society seems to be ever moving forwards even if it sometimes slows to a crawl. At one point African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens, but look what we have today. Womens rights was another issue back in the day and look how far women can advance today; can we say President? Ask someone 50 years ago if a woman would ever sit in the oval office and they'd have laughed their ass off.
I ask you this, what difference in your life would it change or impact if two men or two women you'll never meet get married?
|
