Where The Real Difference Is
August 24, 2010 | Permalink
I would say that for "Homosexual", the "Right" is actually "Do It My Way Or Else". Either you have sex with women, or you can't get married, can't get social security benefits from your spouse, can't be buried next to your spouse in a veterans cemetery, etc.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 24, 2010 7:12:32 AM
That's because there's a demonstrable social benefit to marriage (the production of new citizens). If gays want their unions to be codified, they need to create their own institution (since such a relationship cannot create a new citizen and is therefore not marriage) and demonstrate that institution's benefit to society.
Posted by: mike | Aug 24, 2010 1:07:04 PM
Of course, heterosexuals are not required to have children in order to marry. In fact, both the barren and the elderly are allowed to marry. Likewise, anyone can adopt, and therefore raise children.
Moreover, having children does not create a legal obligation to marry, nor does it create a legal barrier to divorce.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 24, 2010 4:30:59 PM
why do people owe you a tax break for performing certain "acts"?
Posted by: Fog | Aug 24, 2010 8:40:19 PM
Fog - The problem is that you can't say that we owe heterosexuals tax breaks for performing certain acts b/c you approve of them, and then say homosexuals can't get those breaks just because you don't like the two people performing them.
After all, heterosexual couples can do (and often time do) the exact same acts that homosexuals do. Its the heterosexuals that are doing things that homosexuals can't do.
So once again - you're granting tax breaks, and other rights to a group solely because of your dislike of them, which is clearly an unconstitutional restriction on the equal protection clause.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 25, 2010 8:10:11 AM
Wrong. Whether they're required or able or not is irrelevant. You're trying to define the rule by its exceptions.
You want gay unions acknowledged? Create your own, prove its worth. Stop trying to force the impossible on people.
Posted by: mike | Aug 25, 2010 2:09:33 PM
Nick's "logic" is based on so many faulty premises it's hard to know where to start.
First of all, let's get rid of this "hate/fear" notion. That is an attempt to dismiss your opponent's argument due to its "irrationality," because if opposition to homosexual "marriage" is based on an irrational emotion, then there's no need to actually refute it. The fact is that many people who oppose homosexual "marriage" have logical reasons behind their opposition to what is the most radical social experiment ever proposed.
Second, the family is the core of any society, and there's only one way new human life comes about. All heterosexual couples exemplify this essence of marriage, even if not all couples create new families through their marriage. What is this "essence"? Well, for example, we recognize one essential fact about humans is that we are bipedal. This is not altered by the existence of people who have lost part, or all, of one or both legs, nor is it affected by the birth of babies with imperfect or missing legs. Just because there are exceptions, it does not mean the rule is void. It is in this way that normal couples instantiate the essence of marriage. In contrast, no homosexual couple can ever be the source for new life.
Homosexuals have also done enormous damage to certain institutions, such as the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts. What makes anyone think they will not do damage to an even more venerable, indeed, a universal institution like marriage?
P.S.: Homosexuals have always had the option to get married, and many have. That's because marriage, by definition, means one man and one woman. (Yes, I'm aware of polygamous practices; they are not part of Western civilization and so are not germane.)
Posted by: Sparticus | Aug 28, 2010 11:33:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.