You are right, I misquoted the source as the constitution. I can only claim the late hour as my feeble defense.
"fair enough. i believe abortion destroys the right to life of the unborn child, so i am in favor of society legislating against the practice. i believe marriage is an institution between a man and a woman that benefits society. i think homosexual unions are detrimental to society so i oppose gay marriage. i think parents have a right to say that they don't want their child indoctrinated with propaganda regarding a lifestyle that goes against their religion. seems pretty simple to me."
I will not enter into a debate on abortion, because after many such debates, I believe both sides have very valid points.
I believe that a union between gay people can be every bit as strong and mutually benefitial as a heterosexual union. In my personal experience, I believe the gay unions I've seen are in fact stronger and more monogamous than the average heterosexual union, but that may simply be my own observation.
Unlike the abortion issue, I truly do not understand the opposition argument to allowing homosexual marriage. The main argument seems to be something along the lines of 'brainwashing our youth' and 'destroying the family unit'.
My first question is: what happened to free choice? Aren't people allowed to choose their religious belief, their political belief, their taste in home furnishings? Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their sexual preferences? I get occasional visits from Christian groups and Mormon missionaries hoping to convert me to their faith. Are they trying to brainwash me? Should we ban all evangelical religious activities because they are essentially trying to force me into their religion? No, that's ridiculous, I have a choice. Why is sexual preference, when practiced privately between consenting adults, the subject of special treatment? Because your religion opposes it? Since when does your particular brand of religion hold sway over those who choose not to follow it?
As far as the alleged attack on the family unit, what does that really mean? Why would a homosexual union not be considered a strong family unit? And, if you're so worried about the effects on children of such a union, what about single parents? What about parents of religions that you also deem unacceptable? Should we disallow single parent families or non-traditional families because they don't fit your mold of a family unit?
Now, the argument seems to fall back to indoctrination of children. Here, I agree that children are special, and need to be prepared for the impact of certain bad influences. But I believe it is up to the parents what are bad influences, and how they will handle them. Unfortunately, what one person considers bad, another finds acceptable. Short of locking our kids away, we as parents need to prepare our children for the reality of life, instead of filling them with misinformation. Personally, I would love to shield my kids from hate groups who carry signs like "God Hates Fags" and "Kill Muslims". We teach our children that everyone is different, and defaming a person based on those differences is wrong. When my child comes to me and says "X said that Y is going to hell because she's a Jew and doesn't believe in Jesus Christ" (true story), I need to guide my child towards goodness and tolerance while preparing her for the reality of hateful people. I therefore believe that it is every parent's duty to properly prepare their child for real life, which includes a wide variety of beliefs. If you choose to explain to your kids that you believe homosexuality is wrong, and why, it is within your right. But to attempt to restrict someone's right to choose a union that brings them joy and fulfillment because you want to dodge some of your parental responsibility is Wrong.
"well then i guess it's none of your damned business if i have no respect for homosexuality. i guess it's none of your damned business if i don't want to hire a homosexual. i guess it's none of your damned business if i don't want to allow a homosexual into my private club. but we all know that this is exactly what the homosexual agenda seeks to obtain. they want to force people to accept and respect their lifestyle."
I don't give a iota what your opinion of homosexuality is. It becomes my business when you attempt to impose that opinion on others by restricting their rights.
In the above paragraph, are you comfortable with substituting "black/asian/hispanic person" for "homosexual"? If so, you are at least consistent. If not, you are practicing selective bigotry. In certain cases, like private clubs, it is within your rights. In others, like hiring and housing, it is breaking the law.
"if your only threshold for violating someone else's freedoms is physical in nature, then i would assume that you are in favor of legalizing drugs, legalizing public nudity, legalizing cross burning in one's yard, etc. in fact, you should not be opposed to not only nudity in public, but sex as well. after all, sex between two consenting adults is not going to hurt or present physical harm to anyone else, right?
so let it be said that kevin rose believes it should be legal for two fags to engage in sodomy in front of his children. that is the argument you have presented, unless you'd like to clarify."
This is a tough one, and touches many possibilities. I believe that there are certain proprieties that need to be respected. You don't perform certain bodily functions, or sexual acts, in public. Nudity in public, except in well marked private areas, is also a taboo. However, I don't see what is wrong with innocuous displays of affection between same-sex partners. To differentiate hetero and homosexual kissing, for example, goes back to my previous argument about choice and homosexuality. The same degree of public affection should be allowed for both hetero and homosexual couples.
"you just used the word 'privilege', not 'right'. if it is a privilege than who decides who gets the privilege and who doesn't? society does. yes it is my business. marriage is a public institution, sanctioned by society. therefore society has a right to decide how it wants to structure the institution of marriage. if not, then let's just replace homosexuals with some other choice."
I believe that the choice of union is a right and carries with it certain privileges. What if the majority decided that racially mixed marriages were unacceptable (as it did back in the unenlightened times)? Is it thus legal and acceptable to ban such unions? Does majority rule cover instances such as this? What if the majority decides that the Islamic faith cannot be practiced in America? Would that violate the Constitution?
"perhaps you will eventually come to understand that democracy is simply not enough to make a nation thrive. hitler was elected in a democracy. freedom only works when there is moral restraint. to that end, society has a right to set reasonable limits on freedoms for the greater good. that is the basic principle of our founding, and maybe if i give you a few quotes, it will help you to understand the difference."
If you believe that Hitler was elected in a democracy, then I believe you have a very funny definition of the term. By definition, a democracy connotates free choice without coersion, something markedly absent in Nazi Germany. Indeed, society must set reasonable limits on freedoms; however, the spirit of these limits is to maximize individual freedoms while maintaining a safe and lawful society.
Based on your selected quotes, you seem to believe that the Founding Fathers wished for a Christian-only society. If so, then you must believe that we should outlaw all other religions, and deport anyone who practices them. If not, then you must believe that they meant that society should be tolerant of different beliefs and practices.
The definition of morality has changed since the founding of the nation. Homosexuality was prohibited, but so were womens and minorities rights. Slavery was practiced, women could not vote, and free speech was generally restricted to rich white men. Over time, our ideas of acceptable society have changed, for the good in my opinion. That is the beauty of our government, in that it did not impose specific interpretations of morality because it would have produced a stricter, more fragile framework for our democracy. Instead, our founding fathers had the foresight to set up a flexible society that would adapt to a changing world. |
