(November 20, 2013 at 12:00 am)ChadWooters Wrote: In point of fact, everyone already had exactly the same rights. Anyone could marry any one else so long as they were of the opposite sex. That was the rule for everyone. There was no discrimination. As a matter of public policy, a heterosexual man was equally denied the option to marry another man.
Just like how, in 1776, all men were created equal, as long as they didn't make the mistake of being born black. Or too poor to own land. Obviously, women were never in the equation to start with.
Quote:Anyone who hopes to get Social Security some day has an interest in population growth, so as a matter of public policy it makes some sense to reward behaviors that could potentially generate more young people.
Most gay people aren't going to have children regardless of whether or not they marry, so this is yet another stupid argument.
Quote:Whether the justification for that policy was valid or not is an open question. It has nothing to do with hate and it is wrong to vilify Christians just because you disagree with their politics.
As demonstrated with virtually no effort on my part, those justifications are nothing but a way for Christians to legitimize a hatred which is inspired by scripture.
Whether or not the justification for that policy is valid or not has everything to do with the motive behind the policy, and the Bible's stance on homosexuals makes it very clear that the religion holds them in contempt for being what they are. Lacking a single reason to suggest that the policy is valid, as you do, what else is it but hate?
Quote:Since the dawn of time, the sacramental and political aspects of marriage have been entwined. I personally think it is a good thing to separate them. If it were me, I would have removed public recognition of marriage altogether and dump everyone into a civil unions.
Aren't you just a saint.
I've gotten to see plenty of arguments against marriage equality, and every single one is easily reducible to ancient, superstitious hatred.
