Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Your freedom of religion is also anothers freedom from oppression because of your religion. Your freedom of religion does not give one the right to discriminate. That is the bottom line, like it or not.
|
Look, the same-sex marriage question has effectively nothing to do with religion. Religion might be a part of the question, but religion is not the issue here. I'm not religious, but I have reservations about homosexuality, because I think it is a lifestyle which will lead to greater objective "immorality".
Basically, in a perfect world there wouldn't be homosexuality. And as a general rule, while people might tolerate homosexuality. Almost no one wants a homosexual living with them. No one wants two guys cuddling on their couch. If we imagine society like a big family, no one wants their family members to be gay. There might be a few people who claim to be "indifferent". But in reality, a woman(whether she will say it out loud or not) wants her children to be heterosexual. And if she isn't delusional from political correctness nonsense, she wants to see her children have children.
The question actually is, can society place restrictions on marriage? Or for that matter, can society place restrictions on much of anything?
Look at it like this, if you believe the government doesn't have the right to prevent two men from getting married. Does the government have the right to tell three men they can't get married? Does the government have the right to tell two cousins they can't marry? Or how about siblings?
Incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the argument is that the government doesn't have the right to place restrictions on anyone, then if we are being consistent, all of these types of marriages should also be legal.
People will argue that those other marriages should still be illegal for a variety of reasons. People argue that polygamy should stay illegal because the laws currently on the books only deal with two people, and adding more people to a marriage would complicate the laws. I don't believe that "it would take too much time to draft up the rules" is a sufficient argument for keeping something illegal.
Others will argue that incest should be illegal because it is more likely to cause birth defects. Which is true, but doesn't exactly tell the whole picture. For instance, look at the statistics in this link.
How scary is having a baby when you're over 40? - CNN.com
A woman at age 20 has a 1 in 526 chance of having a baby with a chromosomal disorder(IE a birth defect). While a woman at age 45 has a 1 in 21 chance of a chromosomal disorder. The odds of down syndrome at 25 is 1 in 1,250. At age 45, it is 1 in 30.
A woman over the age of 35 has a higher probability of having a child with birth defects than first cousins. A woman over 40, has a higher probability of having a child with birth defects than an uncle/niece marriage. And a woman over 45 has a much higher probability of having a child with birth defects than two siblings.
Birth Defect Risks: Factors and Considerations
Let alone the fact that these are "averages". Many people who have a family history of birth defects, even if marrying in the general population, have a much higher chance of having children with birth defects.
I mean, should the deaf be able to marry? Or how about midgets? People with down syndrome? Etc.
The point is, either society has a right to make socially undesirable acts illegal, or it does not. I'm tired of the discussion being framed in a religious context. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Do I have sympathy for gay people? Absolutely. But if those who support same-sex marriage think the proper avenue is by having the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional, I assume they must be incapable of seeing the wider implications of such a ruling.
I think same-sex marriage is an inevitability, but I think it should be handled by the states, not the courts. By handing it to the courts, you are actually undermining both the legitimacy of the courts, and the ability of society to regulate itself.
You undermine the courts, who must appear to be "activists", since they are declaring laws which have been on the books continuously since the Constitution was written "unconstitutional". And you undermine society by eventually stripping away any ability to discourage any kind of undesirable behavior.
I'm not a fan of "tyranny of democracy" by any means. But neither am I a fan of "tyranny of the judiciary". Same-sex marriage cannot be a constitutional question, because the constitution clearly gave the right to restrict marriages, since every single state restricted them when the constitution was written, and for more than 200 years afterwards(and 150 years since the 14th amendment).
If same-sex marriage is not a constitutional question, it has to be a social question. Leave it there.
"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it."
H. L. Mencken - Wikiquote
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."
Thomas Jefferson's Reaction | www.streetlaw.org
I implore all to be reasonable. Though I realize that in most cases, that isn't possible.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not the same at all. an egg roll is a dish of food, saying no not because you don't make a type of food is not the same as refusing service to someone based on race, religion or sexual preference .
