Homosexual marriage II

[brownjenkins]

Littleadanel sums it up pretty well. I think homosexuals deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's not like we can't change the laws back if it simply doesn't work out.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an
Both: I have a CHOICE what I do with my BIOLOGICAL heterosexual urges (some of which are not legal). *shrug*

My point is that, as far as homosexuality and marriage are concerned, nature vs. nuture is irrelavant. A man could choose to grow his hair long and wear a dress and he would not be denied the priviledge of a heterosexual marriage. It would be discrimination to make a law that said "cross-dressers can't marry", eventhough cross-dressing is 100% choice.

And arguments that it is "really bad" don't fly either, even if they are true.

If homosexuality was "really bad", the act itself would be illegal. Or, at the very least, it would be considered a sickness that had to be treated. It is not. You can't be institutionalized for being homosexual. In fact, most if not all who have ever posted in these threads have supported the idea of civil unions at some point in time, and I don't think anyone has ever argued that homosexuality should be illegal or even grounds for institutionalization.

On the flip side of heterosexual marriage, murders can get married, pedofiles can get married, Catholic Priests can get married (though they would probably lose their status with the church). If there is absolutely no requirement for obviously bad heterosexual marriages, how can we impose one on homosexual marriages?

Originally Posted by Lief:
Marriage loses its meaning.

Marriage has never had meaning in the legal realm. There are zero requirements other than the will of two people to marry. Two evil people can marry just as easily as two good people. Where is the meaning in that?