Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It affects the society that I live in, so it affects me. Period.

But that says nothing about anything being forced on YOU as you stated. Where as BANNING people from marrying DOES directly affect them. Not simply their “society�. They are in effect being FORCED to live their lives (in regard to marriage) as you want them to.

Then open marriage up to anyone(s) and anything(s) and any definition (including marrows) if you want to be logically consistent. If not, then we're on the same playing field - you have your definition, I have mine.

No. The distinction that you continue to ignore is that I am only for banning people from doing something where such action causes direct restriction of freedoms and liberties to others as noted by the constitution. Like for example murdering someone or legislating that minorities cant vote, etc. If such freedoms and liberties are NOT restricted then there is no reason not to allow the action to take place. But you are for banning people from doing something that doesn’t cause any restrictions of freedoms or liberties for you or others. Restricting such action would be by definition unjustly discriminatory. Where as the former is simply discriminatory. So we are not on the same playing field. That’s a bogus rationalization. What you want to do in a nut shell is unjustly discriminate against others and use the concept of majority rule in a democracy as your rational for doing such. But the same rationalization was used in the past for unjust discriminations and to use it here is no better.

A person's definition of harm depends on their worldview. If mine is right, then homosexuality is definitely harmful.

Then if you think “homosexuality is definitely harmful� then you will have to be as adamant about banning gays from being gay as you are about keeping them from marrying. To be logically consistent… And furthermore if your logic is what causes harm should be banned then you better get ready to support a long list of things to ban and banish. And on the list would be marriage in any form since this has been shown to cause great harm to some.

Then your "it's not harmful" argument is empty, too!

Yes that’s a good way to convince me Rian. Ignore the data and just repeat.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying that a person can't vote according to their beliefs. How in the world do you get that it's unconstitutional?

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.�

Youll note im NOT referring to the First Amendment there if that’s what you were worried about. So isn’t necessarily the fact that your using the bible as your basis for discriminating unjustly against others (since your ultimate rational for this is because it is mentioned in the bible) but that you are simply unjustly discriminating against certain people thus restricting them of their rightful “privileges�, their rightful “liberties� and the “equal protection� laid out above.

If you were atheist and saying gays shouldn’t marry because you felt it was harmful to them you would be as guilty of restricting those items as a religious Christian is. The argument either way is ban it because I think it causes harm even though I cant prove it and even though harm is no reason to suppress liberties (and freedom of expression by the way).