(August 5, 2015 at 12:40 pm)Ace Wrote: Very, intersecting that you made this characteristic distinction because I agree with you in that distinctions should not be base on a SINGLE CHARACTERISTIC. Many on this board have argued that anything that a consensual adult does should be granted the right to do. This has been used to argued the acceptances of both polygamy and adult insist (which is illegal)
But it can be argued that even their argument only relies on the single issue of a consensual adult that is to be the factor in deciding.
A single issue is not the same as a single characteristic. Consent is something that can be changed, and not inherent to the person; they can change their minds so that what was good lovin' one day is rape the next week.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not something amenable to change; it is a fixed character of a person's sexual psychology. To argue that they should be treated differently for that reason doesn't hold water, to me.
(August 5, 2015 at 12:40 pm)Ace Wrote: True, and I am not deny any one any equal treatment, agree with or not. More to the point, which many seem to not be recognizing, it is the state (government) not any individual citizens who can decided the rights people have and take away (and they have legally) the rights of people. No person has such a power no matter what their own ideas are.
Indeed, rights are not subject to popular vote, and that's a good thing.
(August 5, 2015 at 12:40 pm)Ace Wrote: Also I have not advocated that anyone rights should be taken away or the unequal treatment of anyone. All I said is that if I don't not agree with same sex, that is my own right to do so, free from any form of prosecution of body or character.
Sure, we all have the right to opine, yourself included. None of us, however, are exempt from disagreement; if someone doesn't agree with me, that's my tough luck. I can try to engage them and change their minds, or I can ignore them.
In my opinion, folks who would deny gay persons the same right to marriage as straight folks are bigots. They can't present any valid objection to it; the right to equal treatment is Constitutional law; and the two reasons they oppose it are either "Eeeeewwww" or "God says don't do it", neither of which have any legal gravity whatsoever.