Quote:
|
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.
|
This point of view is in stark contrast to the fairly widely held view that the U.S. Constitution and the Billl of Rights serve to protect the CIVIL rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, yadda, yadda, yadda) of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Quote:
|
In the same manner, we bear the responsibility of not letting a small group of our society to impose it's will in a manner which will unduely damage other portions of our society. There is always a balance that needs to be maintained. On this issue, I feel that the best balance is not to allow same sex marriages.
|
Civil rights are not negotiable.
I do appreciate the willingness shown to express a point of view here and in other posts. One thing, though, that has never been satisfactorily articulated (for me, at least) is how society will be damaged by allowing same-sex marriages. The argument was offered earlier that in one poster's opinion, children in a two-parent, different-sex household would be more likely to grow up well-adjusted. But what about same-sex partners (or different-sex partners for that matter) who don't want to have children? How is this applicable to their case? And this really doesn't address how families will be damaged. Furthermore, a growing body of studies (this is a relatively new phenomenon after all) show that children reared by same-sex partners are every bit as well-adjusted as children reared by different-sex partners/parents.
Beyond that, would this reasoning be used to deny single-parents the right to have children? Of course not. The reality is that the idealised concept of family (two parents, different-sex partenrs) has been less and less common in recent years, and the hypothetical well-adjusted child coming out of this ideal is often not borne out. Meanwhile, there are REAL (not hypothetical) children to be raised by one parent families, by adoptive families, and increasingly by same-sex partners. These children should not be denied any of the legal protections and economic benefits conferred upon the children of different-sex partners.
Similarly, there is real damage, real pain, real hurt, and a real sense of inferiority inflicted upon homosexuals who are told that they are immoral; that they are not worthy of the same rights, the same CIVIL rights, as heterosexuals; and that they cannot and should not ever aspire to share the same values and ideals of love, commitment and family as heterosexuals.
The opponents of equal rights for same-sex partners cleave to an ABSTRACTION of an ideal family, and to a sanctity of marriage for heterosexuals only, all the while denying or ignoring the all-too-REAL psychic pain they inflict on their REAL brothers and sisters, REAL sons and daughters, and REAL friends, neighbors-next-door and co-workers.
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you".
Matthew 5:10-12