Statesboro, GA, USA
Because, Stephen... it's an aspect of that person's identity that has nothing to do with others' lives... a black person never hurt anyone just by being black, and a gay person never hurt another person just by being gay... or by loving another of the same gender. That is not harmful... yopu might argue that it is harmful to your soul, and against the rules of God... but that presumes a faith in God which I don't think should have any bearing on the laws of our country.
But Homosexuality is different than race, in that it has not been shown to be inborn. Not to mention that there are reasons to think that heterosexuality is normal standard, from which homosexuality is a deviance from. And yes, I am of the old-fashioned intuitive sorts who takes notice of such teleological trifles as complimentary functional reproductive organs. Also it is interesting that the text books have listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder, until the growing pressure of political correctness has made it villainous to say so, attributing all the negative baggage to society's backward views rather than to homosexuality. Physician heal thyself. It's a great tactic.
But whether or not you agree with that, it stands that a disapproval of homosexuality need not be tacitly compared to racism, since it differs from the race question in significant ways.
Also, I certainly don't think homosexuality in and of itself needs to be illegal. Nor do I think practicers of homosex need to be divested of civil rights. I merely think the nature of marriage, justifies the preservation of it's foundational heterosexuality.
And as to faith in God being totally divorced from law, I don't think you really want that. Our early documents state that the basic rights we all have are based upon a very particular Judeo-Christian conception of God (albeit deistically expressed), not merely the state as state, or the people as people. If the state were the ultimate arbiter of rights, then law would be king, with no recourse but power struggle. My whole point (WAY short of man-enforced Theocracy) is that your insistence upon a divorce of religious ideas from public policy is unrealistic, and ultimately undesirable. For whether you "trust in God" as our coins say, or not, I doubt that you are willing to hand your rights over to either the state, or the tyranny of the 51% vote. But it is interesting that if it were as simple as that, changing marriage would already be out of the question by popular vote, and current law.
What's wrong with marriage being "everything to everyone?"
Because then it would cease to be marriage altogether, and become an insipid legal contract, based on literally no criteria but personal desire for financial perks. And that's truly what will ensue, step by step. Can brothers and sisters marry, mothers and sons? Some day they will, because they are currently being "discriminated" against. Mark my words, when the individual becomes so central as to extinguish any idea of a "right way" either in nature or beyond it, then chaos will follow, however long it may take to get there. Polygamy is next, but more will follow.
What impact does two gay people being legally married ahve on your marriage? Does it corrupt yoour marriage? Does it insidiously make you cheat on your wife, or disregard her, or your vows?
Of course not. You are the one saying it has to do with my marriage personally. Again, it's not all about me.
that keeps people on non judeo-Christian sanctioned unions from enjoying that right, and it's wrong.
But Amy there's already a host of people who don't have a "right" to marry according to their own definitions of marriage. The question has nothing to do with rights (questionably extraneous) of an individual, but rather with whether or not we should change the fundamental definition of marriage.
Mmm. Would I rather be raised by Ozzie and Sharon or by TWO Ozzie Nelsons?
It is interesting that you had to go quite outside of the character of Ozzie Nelson to make that point, in which case it wouldn't be an Ozzie Nelson.
Why is tradition important? Why is maintaining a tradition important?
I don't think anyone is arguing for keeping a tradition for tradition's sake. The foundational heterosexuality of marriage is rooted in more than just tradition. It is rooted in religion, sociology, and anthropology. The question is, should a time-honoured tradition be rashly tossed aside, merely because some traditions have proven to be based upon little substance.
what does our foundation have anything with trust? much less belief?
I'm curious Christopher, do you have real fundamental rights? And if so, do attribute them to something transcendent, the state as state, or a show of hands?