Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

Takeda Shingen · 12-11-11, 08:02 PM

The facts that conception is not exclusive to marriage and that human population has done nothing but rise exponentially throughout the course of recorded history invalidate the arguments of heterosexual marriage as necessity.

I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden. It removes no rights granted to heterosexual marriage. Government is unable to force religious institutions to permit homosexual marriage, so the protection of religious practice is an invalid argument. When it comes down to it, no one is harmed. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, and that the fetus should be protected. I disagree with this assertion, but I can accept the position as logical. If you hold that to be true, the elimination of the fetus is murder, and murder denies the most fundamental right (life) to the individual.

No such connection of logic can be made in the case of gay marriage. It always comes down to the fact that person X doesn't approve of the lifestyle. It is akin to people wanting to prevent people wearing cargo pants from driving vehicles; no reason behind it other than the fact that you just don't like cargo pants.

12-11-11, 08:02 PM	#11
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	The facts that conception is not exclusive to marriage and that human population has done nothing but rise exponentially throughout the course of recorded history invalidate the arguments of heterosexual marriage as necessity. I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden. It removes no rights granted to heterosexual marriage. Government is unable to force religious institutions to permit homosexual marriage, so the protection of religious practice is an invalid argument. When it comes down to it, no one is harmed. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, and that the fetus should be protected. I disagree with this assertion, but I can accept the position as logical. If you hold that to be true, the elimination of the fetus is murder, and murder denies the most fundamental right (life) to the individual. No such connection of logic can be made in the case of gay marriage. It always comes down to the fact that person X doesn't approve of the lifestyle. It is akin to people wanting to prevent people wearing cargo pants from driving vehicles; no reason behind it other than the fact that you just don't like cargo pants.