Societal taboos regarding homosexual marriage is anything but pretend.
The pretense is that societal taboos are in any way relevant to this case. The government is responsible for the protection of individual liberties, not for the maintenance of societal taboos. If we let our laws be dictated by societal taboos, dark-skinned people would still be sitting at the back of the bus, women wouldn’t be voting, and interracial marriage would still be illegal. In fact, the specious arguments trotted out to oppose homosexual marriage are virtually identical to the ones that were used to oppose interracial marriage.
I have yet to see the slightest shred of convincing argument that allowing homosexual marriage would have any negative effect on anyone. It may offend some sensibilities, but the right to freedom from offense is not, fortunately, guaranteed under our laws. What business does the government have to tell two people that they cannot enter into a contractual agreement because they belong to the same gender?
For a very long time I have been looking for this subject to be addressed on these threads. Up until now it has been taboo......so to speak.......so before anyone jumps down my throat let me make it clear that I ask these questions clearly out of a lack of understanding and an innate curiosity. But let me also state that I am dead serious when I ask.......where are the women, why are they absent from the scene and if homosexuality *doesn't* play a role then why the ban?
What on earth would homosexuality have to do with it? The answer is very obvious: this is a conservative society dominated by a religion that has strong strictures against public involvement by women and public exposure of women. That religion has been adopted by a collection of tribal cultures that had their own traditional restrictions on the role of women. I think that’s ridiculous and abhorrent, for the same reason that I think a ban on gay marriage is ridiculous and abhorrent. I don’t believe that any civic or religious authority has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do, unless what they are doing infringes upon the rights of others.
How that got into a discussion of homosexual marriage is completely beyond me. Do you think that the repression of women that prevails in conservative cultures with strong fundamentalist elements in the Middle East (and elsewhere) is part of a homosexual conspiracy to repress women?
You do realize, I assume, that homosexuals are as likely to be female as male.
(and just to reiterate a common understanding; that may be because our society *is* based on the Christian faith)
Our society was based on civil laws, among which is the separation of church and state. Even if a majority of Americans are Christians, that majority does not have the right to impose its religious beliefs on any minority.
the fundamental law being broken is the law of procreation, and that mankind didn't have anything to do with writing that one.
The United States Government is only permitted to enforce laws passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by an elected President. To the best of my knowledge, no “law of procreation” fits these criteria. |
