Originally posted by bishop375: I qualified harm because there are a lot of severely short-sighted and weak-minded people who are, in fact, emotionally disturbed by homosexuality.
Just like there are severely short-sighted and weak-minded people who are emotionally disturbed by school prayer.
Originally posted by bishop375:To bring this to your frame of reference, it would be like allowing straight people to murder, but not gays. THAT is apples-to-apples.
Again, the amendment does not ban gays from marrying. If they want to marry legally, they are willing to do so. Also, a straight person cannot marry a person from the same sex. The amendment states what marriage is to be, not what homosexuals are not to do. There is a difference between the two.
See... here is where I consider myself strange.
If a child doesn't want to pray in school, I don't feel they should be forced to. Nor do I think it should be banned. That's something I believe is up to the individual, and if the kid doesn't feel like it, so be it.
So, you're saying that because the state will not recognize a same-sex marriage, the people married do not get the benefits (or penalties, in some cases) afforded to straight couples in the state?
To roll this back a little bit further, someone mentioned polygamy and bestiality.
There are logistical issues with polygamy, ie: how are taxes/property handled in case of divorce? Who has medical rights? If you have a DNR to sign, which one of the wives/husbands sign it? I don't see it as being *wrong*, just difficult.
Bestiality is a completely different thing. Same with an inanimate object.
If you want to define marriage as a relationship between humans, fine with me.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
