|
|
| Re: Gay protest in LA (381589) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:26:27 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. Gay marriage is an issue of the same depth and meaning as interracial marriage was in the Sixties. Again, you are equating same sex and heterosexual relationships. The SCOTUS heard Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 and settled the issue by legalizing interacial marriage as a Constitutionally protected activity under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Again, that's a heterosexual relationship. The only reason marriage isn't strictly defined as a man-woman thing is because up to now, no one in his/her right mind would have considered that needing such definition. I don't view homosexual marriage in the same context as traditional marriage. Gay relationships don't produce children (directly) and heterosexuals so outnumber homosexuals that it's much more important to regulate their relationships, for the good of society. Marriage is society's reward for responsible, socially beneficial intra-gender relationship, primarily as a way to define parentage without the chaos that existed before modern science found a way to define paternity in absolute terms. When it comes to homosexuals, it's more of a personal rights issue. I don't feel society has the right to deny them the legal benefits of marriage (outside those involving children) and that domestic partnership laws can grant all of these rights without opening the "marriage" can of worms. Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is finite, sexual orientation is not. We can't even define sexual orientation as biological or psychological. |
|
|
|