Subject:
|
Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:52:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
334 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > This all seems so blindingly obvious to me, I confess I find the whole gay
> > marriage debate rather confusing. What is there to debate?
>
> When you speak about the issue in terms of contract recognition, sure it
> seems obvious. But doesn't this seem painfully obvious as well: men and
> women are {not} the same. The are not simply humans with irrelevant,
> interchangable reproduction appendages. There {are} distinctive, innate
> qualities to each sex. Merely because they have equal rights doesn't mean
> they are {the same}. Isn't {that} obvious?
Yes but not necessarily relevant.
> And isn't it obvious that the
> {ideal} situation in which to raise a child involves 1 man and 1 women?
No. It's not at all obvious that is true. You'd have to prove it. But don't
bother, because even if it were true, what of it?
Marriage != Raising Children
Ideal != Only
Not Ideal != Should be Forbidden
You have to get out of the mindset that says that the state should legislate
morality or should mandate ideal outcomes. That's properly the province of the
people.
As long as the children of the union (if any...) are being cared for adequately
what do you care about whether it's 3 guys and 4 girls in a clan marriage or 2
girls in a monogamous marriage or whatever.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
