Re: That's utter nonsense. - Edit 1
Before modification by Cannoli at 20/01/2010 12:25:07 AM
1) It has no history because homosexuality has historically been forbidden and/or persecuted by governments (usually "high-minded" religious politicians). Thus, your argument on that point falls apart because the world (or in this case the nation) is in a unique position to finally extend the right of recognized union to homosexuals for the first time.
They have the EXACT same rights of recognized union. The practice of marriage has little to do with sexual preference and feelings, and everything to do with involuntary reproduction. One could argue that in the modern world, its perquisties are obsolete, and require LESS legal enforcement, not more widespread.2) It would not be pointless if you are of the persuasion that certain tax benefits are gained through marriage for the sake of having children. I do not know whether you support this theory or not, but for those who do argue this direction then gay marriage would provide the same benefits given that the gay couple adopt. My own response to such people who argue against gay marriage by using this '"incentive to procreate" argument is that if the theory were true then such benefits should be taken from heterosexual couples who don't have children in a reasonable amount of time (naturally or by many of the same methods gays could use). If you do not subscribe to the "incentive" theory then ignore this.
I do not so subscribe.3) "...attempts to force every one to conform to their view". You know this describes every law, right?
And? What is your point? That is EXACTLY what law is. Any more insights like "people die in war"? If you are attempting to accuse me of some sort of hypocrisy, you would have to cite a law of which I have expressed approval. Good luck. As far as this point applies to the issue at hand, because of this essential nature of laws, they should only be enacted to support practices or customs in place, and to recognize them as such or correct grave injustices. When both parties have the same rights (any man may marry any woman, and vice versa, regardless of their respective sexual orientation, and neither homo- nor heterosexuals may marry someone of the same se
, and there is no history or tradition of carrying out a particular practice, it should not be enshrined in law, particularly if it will only benefit a few to the detriment of many.