TC
aka TomCat
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 11,432
Right, but my opinion is sexual attraction isn't limited to gender alone. You can be heterosexual and find a some women utterly repulsive. Same with gays, they wouldn't be sexually attracted to just anyone who shares their gender. You say sexual attraction to a gender is instinctual, but all the other parts of sexual attraction is socialized? I don't agree with that.
That's where the "slippery slope" argument stems from, no matter how much you dislike it. Someone can't marry who they want to, so it's an unfair and unnecessary regulation? Just as long as it's between consenting adults?
One group that I keep thinking about are bisexuals. I don't have a problem with them either, but what do they think about marriage? Do they think it's unfair that if they choose to get married, they have to decide one or the other gender to get married to? Or should they be allowed to have 2 spouses, of each gender, since they were obviously born bisexual and it would be a violation of their civil rights to limit them to one partner each, because the archaic marriage laws that limit marriage to just 2 people?
It can be a slippery slope. And in a country where you can spill coffee all over yourself, sue the company that sold it to you, and have some idiot judge award you millions of undeserved dollars... I wouldn't put much faith in humanity to enforce rules or common sense after legal precedences start piling up. They need to get specific and just define marriage, as far as the government is concerned, and just get it over with. imho
Again, you're trying to make a direct connection between banning same-sex marriage and religion. If that law passed, it wouldn't be a religious law, regardless of how you feel about it. People can vote however they want, that is their constitutional right, and no one has the right to question their reasons. Whether you want to admit it or not, everyone votes based on emotional responses. Marriage is an emotional thing, more then anything else. Unless you're just doing it to get tax breaks and other government paid (tax payer financed) benifits. In which case, it's entirely up to the voters to decide whatever they wish, based on whatever personal beliefs they have, religious or otherwise. You believe people who're sexually attracted to the same gender should be allowed to get married and get spousal benifits, because you believe they were born that way and it's a civil rights issue. The problem is that it hasn't yet been proven, so your opinion is simply based on your personal beliefs. And you sure are getting emotional about it in here.
But the fact is, marriage is deeply rooted with religion. To expect religious people to not care about marriage, or what standards they think it should be held to, would be very ignorant. It's a personal issue for them, just like same-sex marriage is a personal issue for homosexuals. And to expect them not to vote about issues they care very deeply about, is equally out-of-touch.
If this wasn't an emotional issue, then they would be trying to change the laws governing civil unions to give them the same benifits as "traditional married" couples. Instead they're going after marriage itself, because it means so much more then a civil union.
