A: Marriage means man and woman, and has always meant man and women.
This has already been rebuffed by others. But, since we're all in favor of tradition and the majority having all rights over the minority:
Do you support high progressive taxes? After all, the rich have a responsibility to cater to society's needs, due to their ability to pay more. All because the majority says so. And tradition as well, though that varies on how long "tradition" is. Gays were accepted long before the Bible was written.
B: I think you, a gay man, should be allowed to vote or whatever else just like a straight man, exc.
Alright, you show promise.
But, neither gay nor straight men should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Why not? Because God says so? Because of tradition?
I'm sure there are plenty of other traditions that suck rocks(like denying minorities of all colors, and women, the right to vote), so let's get rid of that as justification.
Religion has no role in the state, though as you've said, that was based off a letter and not an Amendment(though it should have been an Amendment since the First Amendment's religious provisions suck). But still. I'm sure God has endorsed plenty of other things you'd disagree with.
Though, how can you argue against democracy and how we're a republic founded on minority rights, when you deny those same minorities their rights? Even if you're not advocating being dragged through the street on fire, you are still advocating the denial of rights.
I'm against regulating what they do in their home,
Well at least this shows promise.
but the government shouldn't recognize a marriage.
Again, why not?
The government's duty is protect the principles of negative liberty and preserve order, and also arguably to ensure the smooth process of commerce(as said by Adam Smith). Promoting gay marriage, or at least giving gays the same exact rights, factors into negative liberty AND fosters economic order and even growth.
...though you know, if you want to regulate the economy like a lefty...
Also, allowing them to marry and giving them more rights
But don't you believe in legal equality? If not, I propose we take the right to an attorney away. If you do, then you must support the right of everyone to have the same exact benefits as everyone else; otherwise, you do not believe in equality before the law.
Alternatively, we
could always abolish marriage and leave it up to the churches. Have the government issue the licenses for all the benefits - the government, as a secular authority, should not give a damn about religious beliefs and should issue licenses for all consensual relationships. There are churches that would perform gay ceremonies, so everyone's a winner, since everyone would be equal: everyone could get married, yet to have the force of law and all the benefits attached, everyone would have to get a government license.
Is that so wrong?
You don't have to condone homosexual behavior, thanks to the great rights we enjoy in this country.
Also. Social approval does not have any impact on the law. See the case of
Texas v. Johnson: an act is not illegal simply because it is not approved of.
Also. Social acceptance increases over time. What about when the majority DOES condone gay behavior? You and I might be dead by that time, but the point remains.
It is okay. These are our opinions, however: how do you prove one is more valid.
Thought it is okay especially from a minority rights perspective: we are a nation founded on the principles of minority rights with insulated majority rule. To not give gays their rights as a minority on
religious grounds is to take a giant crap on the very ideals of the Framers.
I was just posting data that seems to indicate that AIDS, if anything, would be a straight disease.
Evolution has no proof, and I'd like to see scientific proof of it. Every painting must have a painter.
