I am not asking if you defend gay rights. We have beaten that horse to death.
I am more interest on how you veiw his logic. I have to agree at least to an extent. All laws are based on what is right and wrong, even if the wrong is because someone deems it unsafe or unwise. So by extension laws are based on morals (not just christian but a sense of what is right and wrong/ what works and what doesn't)
So do you think his ARGUMENT has a true foundation or validity? (not the issue itself)
Answer by okmanders at 2:38 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
What's sad is that I read my response and it bothers me that I sound like an activist. I'm not anything like that. I think when I look at marriage as it is now, there are plenty of immoral heterosexual people that are married. They don't exactly firm the case for morality. And then you have lifelong partners that happen to be gay and I just don't see how that kind of relationship would be considered immoral. I respect both sides of the debate though. Anyhow, with the parallel I think we need to look at he purpose behind a marriage or union and take that into consideration before we worry about the gender of those that are willingly participating in that relationship.
Answer by QuinnMae at 2:50 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 3:01 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Answer by FreeForAll at 3:15 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Now, I do not see an argument that connects bestiality. An animal cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with a human. Same goes with pedophiles. You have people that belong to groups like NAMBLA that try to insist that grown adult men having a sexual relationship with a child is normal. It is not. A child cannot legally consent to that kind of a relationship. So while I think there are moral obligations to protect those that are not legally able to consent to that kind of a relationship, I think there is room to allow those that ARE legally able to consent in a relationship the ability to make that commitment to each other. I don't see that as a negative for society. That's JMO though.
Answer by QuinnMae at 2:56 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Answer by QuinnMae at 2:30 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Well, I think as time goes on we need to look at the relevance to our society today. I think back when the constitution was written that homosexuality was considered immoral. The fact is, a homosexual relationship is a consensual relationship between two adults that can legally consent. I don't consider what was relevant in the late 1700's particularly relevant to today. Same goes with the second amendment. You have people arguing that at the time weapons consisted of muskets. It's the purpose behind the right to bear arms that must be protected, IMO.
I'm not saying he is wrong (I have not studied constitutional law), but I don't agree with his opinion about ruling what is moral and immoral.
Answer by QuinnMae at 2:37 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Answer by tnm786 at 2:49 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Answer by QuinnMae at 2:39 PM on Dec. 11, 2012
Answer by older at 3:34 PM on Dec. 11, 2012