Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
You have the conch. What's the word?
If one needs convincing that anything short of full and equal privileges be granted to homosexuals, than one would seem to have some sort of problem with the concept. Or the people. "Offended" is simply one term of many to connote the same general sentiment.
|
They are granted full and equal privileges. There is no statutory exclusion that homosexuals not be allowed to marry, they just have to marry a member of another gender. I imagine you reject that notion and say that the statute is facially discriminatory and I can see your point.
As I said in my original post, I remain conflicted about the whole matter. I don't pretend to know the correct course of action in the SSM debate. I know you feel like this is strictly a civil rights issue and I sympathize with this position. Then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea of changing the definition of marriage without a more thorough understanding of the potential consequences. But there will be consequences. You and others say they will be positive. Others say they will be negative. That's why I prefer to take a wait and see approach.
I will admit that I'm turned off by the rhetoric from both sides. I don't like the Adam and Steve jokes and find them tasteless. There are people who are intolerant of homosexuals and they have muddied the debate. I also don't like the accusations of homophobia when genuine concerns exist and the mocking attitude towards those concerned about how this change will affect their families and future generations. The bottom line is that those concerned about the consequences of this change need to be appeased and it won't suffice to merely make fun of them.