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.
Its pretty impressive that you think that "forcing to tolerate" is an actual imposition being put on you. Nobody is asking you to do anything, nobody is looking to forcibly marry you, nobody is bothering you and yet you actually believe that "forcing to tolerate" is an actual thing. How about you just mind your own business and "tolerating" someone else's personal relationships wont be such a problem for you?
Being forced to do something is an imposition by definition.
You simply do not have the right to control other people's actions. If you are such a snowflake that someone else's personal relationship bothers you so much maybe you should move to a deserted island.
You can fight for your personal totalitarian state where government is your god and everyone must live the way you want and normal decent people will fight against you.
That's perfectly backward. Your position is the one imposed by a totalitarian state.
These sorts of issues could easily be settled , provided there was enough political will to do so of course , via requiring the federal government to legally recognize all civil unions/domestic partnerships for the purposes of taxation and the like .
One could even refer to it as the federal level gay marriage compromise .
Compromise is a good thing in certain matters.
Not in human rights.
One group of humans should not compromise their rights, to please another.
Not a fan of the term marriage. I think when you hear the term "I'm married to" you can know the person is with someone of the opposite sex. However, no issue with people having the same rights, benefits etc.. with being with someone of the same sex. Just keep marriage term what it is. Between a man and women.
You don't need a marriage license to love, live with, have intimacy with, or raise kids with someone.
Marriage is nothing more than a symbolic gesture for tax benefits and divorce protections. It's not a magical paper that makes you love someone.
It's more than tax benefits and divorce protections. There is an entire set of legal protections and actions that marriage makes more straightforward, especially after death and during periods of medical issues.
Do you really believe that literally every single place on Earth should have the same set of legal/political rights accorded to its citizens ?
As far as government regulating personal relationships is concerned , are you merely referring to personal relationships of a romantic/sexual nature or personal relationships in general ?
Because at the risk of coming off pedantic , taken literally this statement would very well mean that the government has no right to prosecute anyone for fraud within the context of a very much personal business transaction .
Of course I realize that this is probably a rhetorical question on my part , since you have clearly stated that you do support government interference in cases of people directly harming others , but it's nonetheless important to risk looking like a smart aleck when it comes to discussions as these because usage of certain phrases is very important .
Taking the statement of " everyone should have equal rights " for instance , the fact of the matter is that said statement is far too often conflated with support for equality before the law/equality of opportunity .
In other words while I'd wager that upwards of 99% of people living in contemporary Western society ( myself included ) support every person being subjected to the same legal process during criminal trials and/or all adults of sound mind having the same opportunity to apply for employment/like things , taking the statement of " everyone should have equal rights " literally would very much result in allowing drunkards to become truck drivers , something which I imagine literally nobody ( including those who like to use this phrase ) supports .
Egalitarian spirited statements like this obscure the fact that equality before the law/equality of opportunity as classically defined should not be conflated with granting the inalienable right of everyone to engage in every possible facet of life , with homosexual marriage being a perfect example of this .
Since homosexuals can neither naturally conceive nor properly raise children , and it's of crucial importance that a child be raised by both a mother and a father ( a role which homosexuals obviously cannot fulfill ) , it's very much consistent for even a society wedded to the conception of classical liberalism to exclude homosexuals from this facet of life without ( naturally ) contradicting these aforementioned principles of equality before the law and equality of opportunity .
In short John Locke , Benjamin Constant , Alexis de Tocquevile , etc. , would most certainly not have been supportive of homosexual marriage in spite of being amongst the preeminent figures of classical liberalism .
Yes, we are all individuals and should all have the same rights everywhere on earth. Governments do not have the right to violate them even if everyone except 1 person in a country wants to do it. That person has the right to do it.
I am referring to marriage. Government has no place regulating that relationship or giving special benefits or obligations to people who are married vs not married. However, if the government does recognize marriage; it must recognize marriage between any people who consent to such a relationship.
A business transaction where fraud is conducted has a victim who is harmed. So that is a legal violation.
It doesnt have to make sense to you for homosexuals to be married. It is simply not within your right to deny them that ability while allowing it for other people. There doesnt need to be a logic for allowing them to do so since government doesnt have the right to allow or not allow it. It only has the right to treat any two people the same (or more than two people).
Has anyone made a legal argument for why gay marriage would be overturned? Is there one?
"I feel I should have the right to use government to enforce my personal preferences on other people."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
