At 3/28/13 01:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
But, traditional marriage will become completely emotional with no functionality if gays are allowed to marry in the same institution.
Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.
You have very much failed to prove that reproduction is anything but a minor part of marriage. Prove that marriage is ALL ABOUT reproduction and you'll have at least a slight case. But so long as the purposes of unity, love, commitment, raising of a family, and settling down still exist in levels of importance equal to or greater than reproduction, your point is meaningless, and seems to be nothing other than a lst grasp at straws.
Now, EVEN IF, you are right and reproduction is the major purpose of marriage, how does allowing gays to marry hurt marriage other than making their AND ONLY THEIR marriages useless? How does my heterosexual baby producing marriage change in ANY way because homosexual marry?
Also, how does a no reproducing homosexual marriage hurt the institution, as you wish to frame it, any more than a heterosexual couple that either cannot or chooses not to reproduce? What about compared to a hetero couple that divorces? Also, how is a gay couple that adopts and soundly and properly raises a child any worse than a hetero couple who does the same, or a hetero couple who biologically reproduces a child but then proceeds to abuse and neglect the child? Are you saying that the birth of a child is the only important factor, and that a child who is blood related to both parents is more important than one who blood related to one or adopted?
You have MAJOR holes in your argument that you need to sew up before you can start saying anything definitive.
However, legal immigrants are excluded from benefits given to American citizens. These are positive rights, and include:
The rights you listed are directly related to citizenship. They are citizen rights that only citizens of ANY country get to recieve from their respective country. Voting, free travel, free residency, recieving of governmental services are all items that are reserved to tax paying citizens who are part of the country. These are restricted to citizens only, because allowing them to any schmo who comes in will drain the budget, put the US government at the hands of any foreign national who chooses to vote, put US lands at the hands of any foreign national who chooses to settle there. So, like I said before they are directly related to the threshold act.
This is ONLY akin to marriage if you're actually able to prove that reproduction is not only the primary function of marriage, but the SOLE function of it. Otherwise the benefit denied is not closely enough related to the threshold act to rationally be withheld.
Marriage is a positive right - a privilege system intended to benefit heterosexual couples exclusively. While gay couples are still allowed civil unions (another positive right, by the way), the institution of marriage was never intended for these.
Which marriage are you thinking of? State or church? Sure, the church can deny marriage to whomever they wish. State marriage has never been about the same things as church marriage, so unless you can prove that State marriage is primarily and solely about reproduction, the State has no reason to deny it to homosexuals.