Quote:
|
Quote by: Dirty Name Homosexuals are NOT denied these rights on the basis of their sexual orientation... in fact, homosexuals have equal access to the institution of marriage, they simply don't want to conform to what is required to gain the benefit.
It's really no different from farm crop subsidies. If the state offers to subsidize soybeans (or traditional marriages), but a farmer (or gay person) chooses not to raise soybeans (or to marry someone of the opposite gender), is he denied the right to claim the subsidy (or the marriage benefit)? Of course not. The farmer chooses to raise corn instead of soybeans, and for that, he doesn't get to claim the benefit, even though he COULD have. Likewise, the gay person could have married someone of the opposite sex and claimed the benefit, but he chose not to. No rights are denied here.
You people are arguing from emotion and now you are also beginning to argue in circles. We've covered this before. You've circled my argument, but you can't get through, now you're going back to this worn-out "equality" argument. Too bad the state doesn't care about sexual orientation - only the gender composition of the couple seeking to marry. |
I am truly staggered that you can compare marriage to farm crop subsidies, and then say that my using my own marriage as an example is irrelevant.
Marriage comes with choice. The legal right to marry who you want to marry is a basic part of the institution. I can't believe I even need to say this; you have detached so far from reality in pursuing your argument, you no longer make any sense. What use is it to have the right to do something you would never do? How does that make us equal? It's equivalent to saying that whites should have rights that blacks don't have, because a black person could always have surgery to turn their skin white, they just choose not to. Or say that women should not have the right to vote, because if they really wanted to, they could have a sex change, become men, and vote. It is absurd.
As for a redefining of the institution of marriage, why? We are not discussing the institution, and never have been. We are discussing the legal status, as you keep saying, and not the institution itself; the legal status of marriage should extend to all citizens, as one of our basic rights. To deny it on the basis of who benefits the state most is not equality, and therefore should not be the law. Basic human rights are inherent, they are not earned, and the right to define one's own familial ties is a basic human right.
The benefits that a homosexual couple should gain? The right to call themselves married on the U.S. census. The same benefits that infertile heterosexual marriages gain. If you think those rights should be changed, fine, but it needs to be changed equally, for everyone.
That's it. The end. Nothing more to debate: it is a basic human right to marry who you wish, and have your marriage be recognized as such by the state.