Quote:
|
Quote by: Waychel What Starboy can't seem to grasp is that if we award the federal recognition of marriage to homosexuals on the grounds of "equal representation" within the very definition of marriage (what this debate is about), then we must award the same "right" to all other forms of marriage on the same grounds. This means that polygamist marriage among others will need to be recognized on a federal level. Marriage law would need to change and the priveledges of federally recognized marriage (joint tax returns, social security benefits) that homosexuals want would dissapear.
That is what I find fallacious about the whole thing. If we represent homosexuals within the definition of marriage under the grounds of "equal representation", then ALL forms of marriage or lifestyle MUST be entitled to "equal representation" as well. Saying that, "Homosexual marriages would be recognized and that is all. No impact would be made upon the country's institution and treatment of marriage." is not only wrong, but a total lie. |
And what Waychel doesn't seem to grasp is that denying any group their rights because it would be legislatively inconvenient and oh my gosh, it just might give some other groups their rights as well is no better an argument than saying that the Jim Crow laws should stay on the books because there would not be enough bathrooms if blacks were now allowed to use them. It is specious and has nothing to do with the basic issues.
Starboy