Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Separate, but equal is not equal at all, and I seem to remember almost the exact same argument being put forth in the 60s about whites and blacks not being allowed to marry.
|
I’m not interested in gay bashing or straight bashing, I’m only interested in examining philosophical principles here. You say, I am assuming, that the principle of “separate but equal” is invoked by prohibiting same-sex "marriages." But I’m here to ask why the opposite isn’t true: Why isn’t the call for same-sex "marriage,” vis-à-vis opposite-sex marriage, actually separating marriage into two kinds? Why wouldn't that be separate but equal?
I think the separate-but-equal principle is already dispelled in the current marriage laws, because there is only one kind of marriage—opposite-sex marriage—and homosexuals are not excluded from it. If you want to split marriage into two kinds, each different from the other on the grounds of sexual preference, then it is
you who is invoking the separate-but-equal principle.
Quote:
|
There is no measurable harm done to other people by allowing two people of the same sex to wed.
|
I don’t see the philosophical point here. Who ever said anybody will be harmed by same-sex marriages? Is anybody ever harmed by opposite-sex marriage?
Just to keep this thread on track, I don’t think there is anything unnatural about same-sex “marriage,” because I don’t think there is anything unnatural about homosexuals. I’m just asking why the definition of “marriage”—the legal definition—has to be split up and parsed out to please special groups. Which group is next in line for special consideration?
Btw: Many people like Barack Obama and me don’t see homosexuals as unnatural or even undesirable. We just don’t understand why the definition of marriage needs to be revised, especially when states now are beginning to offering same-sex civil unions that have the same legal purchase as opposite-sex marriages have.
