Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
I believe our society was on firm footing when it defined marriage as a "state of being husband and wife", it was cut and dried, no exceptions. Gay marriage and Polygamy were rejected because marriage was this simple concept... no room for any other interpretations, the moral position was clean and difinitive. Now it seems we've got another interpretation, and our government is saying that it doesn't have the moral imperative to deny Gays their right to marriage. That's fine, but now the simple concept of marriage isn't limited to man and wife... an exception exists... to me this seems like an "open season" declaration.
|
if simplicity is what you desire, then surely defining marriage as a "state of being between two people" is the simplest of definitions. more to the point, restricting that those two people be of opposite sex requires the kind of moral interpretation you deride from those that would have marriage be genderless.
the opening up of marriage to same sex couples is not creating an exception to marriage. rather, removing the requirement that couples be of the opposite sex delivers a freedom that never should have been restricted.
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
the fact of the matter is that the majority of US citizens don't want homosexuals to be allowed to marry, but that doesn't seem to matter.
|
the majority has been known to be in the wrong before. what's so difficult to accept that they're wrong now?
besides, defining marriage is not about a popularity contest. it goes back to the constitution and bill of rights that define the country - equal opportunity, equal rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
a wise man once said, "a house divided against itself can not stand". Abe was a clever fellow, don't believe what the revisionists tell you.
|
if you truly believe the wise man in this instance, then you would let go of your pre-conceptions about same sex marriages and get behind the constitution and bill of rights.
i'm sure honest abe, one of the greatest humanitarians ever to have lived, is rolling in his grave that you would try to use his words to restrict civil rights in this fashion.