Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
*Sigh*
What benefit am I restricting? I am in favor of 100% equal rights.
|
But the "right" to marriage is only for people who believe the 'Correct' way?
Quote:
|
If the term marriage itself is a benefit, than I'm no more restricting a "perceived benefit" than you would be. Heterosexuals perhaps "perceive" that term to mean a man and woman's union as a benefit...
|
You say they can marry someone else, but not whom they love. How is that not deying the same benefit.
Quote:
|
So, either you're saying that the heterosexual's "percieved" benefit isn't actually a benefit and therefore it shouldn't matter to them, or you're saying that it IS a benefit but one that only matters to gays as you are in favor of removing that "benefit" from straights...
|
I used the word "benefit" because in our society marriage is portrayed as a benefit to those who partake in it. If it's not then why deny it to someone based on their orientation?
But the real question here is the law as voted on and the judge's action. Is marriage an innate right? Insomuch as the freedom to do what we want is an innate right, then yes.
If it's not an innate right, then what is it? A social contract? Then to what end?
Is it an official acknowledgement of a love relationship?
What is the purpose of stating that it is only between a man and a woman, except the express reason of saying to homosexuals "See, you aren't allowed to do this"?
To that end the law is a nose-thumb to a segment of society, base solely on morality. In that it's wrong.