Originally posted by Curval
I think it is stupid to take a few passages written by men and call it the word of God and then use it to justify discrimmintaing against a whole group of people.
Ok, let's go with that then. For the sake of discussion, lets just say the bible is a collection of alagories to discourage behavior that is counter-productive to a community/society, and promote behavior that is good for society (morality).
Is it cherry picking to cite passages about adultery?
How about greed?
How about sloth?
Oh wait...you brought up discrimination in this quote....Back to morality for a second. Goverment legislates morality...seriously, think about it. Not only do they make laws against what is wrong, but they also give insentives for good behaviour in some instances. Take marriage for instance. Thousands of years ago people figured out that a child with both parents there to support them had a better chance for survival, and as civilation developed, a better chance of becomming a contributing member. Obviously the acients were on to something since the tradition has taken hold in almost all societies world wide throughout history.
So the 190something legal perks granted by the US government, are incentives to carry on the tradition. Yes, some are pratical protections for property and transfering services, but many are perks for doing what the government sees as keeping society going for
generations to come.
So exactly were does the concept of "same sex marriage" benifit society with the production of future generations to carry on society? Admittedly, there are ways for that, but let's continue to be pratical. So with premiss for the concept being absent, how is it discrimination to withhold those perks?
I don't think it is. Everyone has the choice to "marry" as it has been defined throughout history, hence no discrimination. People who don't like that option may not think it's fair, but that does not make them entitled to a redefinition of marriage.
I do in pricipal support some legal protections to be extended to same sex couples. It is obviously not cool for a "partner" to be denied some sort of "next of kin" status in many instances. I'll buy that lack of those protections in many states lead to descrimination. That does not mean that they are entitled to all the perks the government has seen fit to grant to people who are actually married as has been defined throughout history.
Back to your quote. I take exception to you comparing a simple statement of personal belief, with going out and murdering people. I take exception to the premiss that an opposition to same sex marriage is automatically anti-gay/pro-descrimination. Just because someone draws the line short of same sex marriage based on thier beliefs, does not automatically make them a bigot/zealot.
