Quote:
Originally posted by: sike
LRB, so your argument is denial of homosexual marriage based upon what may be perceived as possible damage to society...lots of variables there....damage percieved by whom, damage to whom, etc...(indeed complex...and most likely fairly subjective)....
if the argument is, "if we allow this then we're gonna hafta allow that down the road", then welcome to a democratic republic....sometimes it rocks...sometimes it blows!
|
Sike the argument of damage is very subjective as is the argument that no significant damage occurs as is the argument that not allowing homosexual marriages is discrimination. All the arguments depend on how you view them. There are many different ways to view them.
I contend that the family unit based upon a marriage of between a man and a woman is essential for our society to continue to thrive and grow. I believe that altering the legal definition of marriage would lead to serious repercussion in society in the years to come. The damage would be done to many individuals. While it is quite possible to raise a child outside of a traditional family and have that child be a well adjusted and contributing member of society, I do believe that it is much more likely for this to happen than not within a tradional family. There are exceptions on either side. Obviously there are also many factors at play here. But I do belive that any society should have the ability to enforce the moral values that it feels are essential for it's well being. That is why we all enjoy the freedoms that we do. To insure the freedoms for many, we may needs to accept some restrictions. Now as to whether this is a necessary and benefical restriction is subjective. Our society in this country, generally determines this with a majority opinion.