A New Stance on Morality

[liberalogic]

Originally posted by musicman:

"Take a stab at it. Why do YOU think so many people are against it? I know you've cited religious beliefs and such, but - ultimately - from your point of view - why?

Is it because they don't know any better, and you do?

Is it because you're fair, and they're not?"




I wasn't dogging you, liberalogic - honest. I'm just genuinely curious as to why YOU think we can't see the fairness and rightness of this.

As we've discussed many times before-- you have the right to vote on this issue with regards to how you feel. I can't change that and I can't take that right away from you.

With the issue itself, though, fairness is essential to this argument. Homosexuals are not violating any laws by becoming a couple (which a pedophile would be doing). If they want to share an exclusive relationship (a commitment if you will), then there is no reason why they should not be entitled to the same exact benefits as a straight couple. If both couples are "married" or "binded" by the state, then the sexual preference of the couple should not be a factor.

And as for the "marriage" v/s civil union issue...Besides the fact that a couple united under a civil union does not get the same benefits, there is no reason why the gay couple can't be "married." Yes, it's true that the concept of marriage is derived from religion, but the government should be defining marriage according to its own laws, not the laws of the church. I am strongly against gays getting married in churches; I say this because it is a PRIVATE institution. In other words, the government has no right to tell them who they should marry. But the state sanctioned union of marriage should not be defined by the church sanctioned union of marriage.

 

[Annie]

As we've discussed many times before-- you have the right to vote on this issue with regards to how you feel. I can't change that and I can't take that right away from you.

With the issue itself, though, fairness is essential to this argument. Homosexuals are not violating any laws by becoming a couple (which a pedophile would be doing). If they want to share an exclusive relationship (a commitment if you will), then there is no reason why they should not be entitled to the same exact benefits as a straight couple. If both couples are "married" or "binded" by the state, then the sexual preference of the couple should not be a factor.

And as for the "marriage" v/s civil union issue...Besides the fact that a couple united under a civil union does not get the same benefits, there is no reason why the gay couple can't be "married." Yes, it's true that the concept of marriage is derived from religion, but the government should be defining marriage according to its own laws, not the laws of the church. I am strongly against gays getting married in churches; I say this because it is a PRIVATE institution. In other words, the government has no right to tell them who they should marry. But the state sanctioned union of marriage should not be defined by the church sanctioned union of marriage.

Excuse me for jumping in here, exactly what 'rights' are lost from civil unions v. marriage?

 

[liberalogic]

Excuse me for jumping in here, exactly what 'rights' are lost from civil unions v. marriage?

Civil Unions are only recognized by the state and lack the rights granted to the married couple by the federal government (joint federal income tax returns, visas and work permits for the foreign partner of a U.S. citizen, etc.).