Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.
Comment in question
Posted by Peris, on 07-28-2008 13:46,
I agree with Watree's statement, despite the fact it grossly oversimplifies the debate. However, the argument "If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry a homosexual." is like saying... If you're against global warming, eat red meat. One doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. I'm against homosexuals marrying - but only because society defines marriage as a male and female thing and doing so breaks the rule. It leaves us unnecessarily trying to "re-define" marriage. If society defines "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman, then anything shy of that should not be considered a marriage. Period. And that has little to do with orientation...
Now if gay people need to benefit from the "benefits of marriage," and if society defines "marriage" as a union between people of the opposite sex - then the dilemma could simply be resolved by defining a union between people of the same sex AND ALLOWING THAT instead of maneuvering around the definitions of marriage. "A Civil Union... Life Partnership... whatever..." But not marriage.
Marriage should ONLY and ALWAYS be defined as a union between heterosexual males and females ( well... individuals born male and female.) Anything else is nothing short of a lifestyle CHOICE. I'm for choices, but a spade is a spade.
Lump all of the "alternative lifestyle choices" into their own barrel - but not into the marriage barrel. This might help prevent having to deal with situations like what could happen if a transexual male (once a female) decides to marry a transexual female (once a male...) If we continue down this path, before you know it we'll be re-evaluating what "male" means and what "female" means... Hell - we may already be there!
Opinions
