(May 10, 2014 at 1:25 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:(May 9, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: The rationale reason would be that heterosexual unions generally offer more value to society then homosexual unions. A simple thought experiment is all that is needed to prove the point. Imagine if everyone in a society became homosexual. Such an event would be catastrophic on society. Now imagine if everyone in society became heterosexual. Society wouldn't miss a beat.
Since heterosexual unions generally provide more value to society, the state has reasons to incent such unions over less valuable ones.
1. Not everybody is homosexual, so who cares?
2. The idea that a marriage has to "be of value to society" is both specious and horrible.
3. Not all heterosexual marriages are equally "valuable", yet this plays no role in heterosexual marriage outside of polygamy and incest.
4. Society vs. individual rights is one of those things that regressives change sides on whenever the 'individual' is someone they don't seem to like.
So, like the judge said, there is no rational reason.
I'm surprised. I've started threads on this before, and usually the pro-discrimination dog turds wait a while before coming in and reminding everybody that they are really terrible human beings.
You've got a signature that says, "If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again" and you call me horrible? You're advocating murder.
Anyways my responses to your points
1. Who cares? The people of Arkansas.
2. Claiming marriage has no value is a poor argument. Most find marriage a valuable component in society.
3. You are applying specific incidents and claiming it applies as a general rule.
4. This is actually a good point. Where you err is in thinking it makes the rational reason to ban gay marriage go away.
