Quote:
Originally Posted by Episcopus  I agree on the government point.
I disagree on the slippery slope point. No one will be able to marry their dog. Dog's are not human and have no ability to enter into a contract. A governmentally recognized marriage is a contract. Minors can already be married in plenty of places, all it takes is parental consent. Why should that be different if an adult and minor of the same sex want to marry? Pedophilia is already a crime, and would still be a crime, with an exception for legally married couples just like now.
As far as protection as a minorty or protected group goes, it depends on whether you feel sexual orientation is a choice or a hardwired biological process. If it is a choice, no protection. If it is biological, it should probably be protected. You can't choose to be black, asian, native american or any other race. You can't choose whether you are born a woman. That's the point of protection for those groups. If you can't choose to be gay/not gay, then there is basis for protection of gays. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4sarge I could not disagree with you more. The law should provide Equal Protection for All, Not Special Protection for Government Legislated Select Groups. Battery is Battery, Murder is Murder, prosecute for the crime actually committed and apply the same criteria to all. |
While, as does Episcopus, I agree with Sarge that law should provide equal protection for all equally, we aren't so much talking about protection from criminal acts as we are protection from discriminatory acts. There are Constitutional Amendments that provide that it is unlawful to prevent someone from voting (for example) on basis of color (and/or previous condition of servitude), gender, and age greater than 18. I don't think these are "special protections" but rather laws written to address discriminatory acts already happening. A law or a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as solely between one male and one female and excluding other groups could be seen as a special protection for heterosexual couples, entitling them exclusively to certain benefits unavailable to other members of society. What it comes down to is that if we are talking about consenting adult humans, (for dogs cannot give consent, nor can children, legally), there should be no restriction upon who can marry whom. Yes, that includes incestuous relationships, BUT along with that freedom goes the responsibility to provide for any child of that relationship, including one with special needs, because while it is your freedom, it is also emphatically NOT society's responsibility to care for your offspring who still needs to be spoon-fed at the age of 12.
I don't expect government to meet my needs. I don't agree with being taxed BY government to meet the wants (not needs) of others who choose to milk the system for all it's worth. That government which governs least, governs best, IMHO, and there are damn few laws on the books that are truly needed for a free society whose members are truly and personally responsible.
CarmelHP, you're correct, the GOP candidates have not, to date, addressed the issues of the gay community. Be that as it may, if the Obama troops are trying to sow discontent, let them. We may disagree within our community, but at the end of the day, we still respect each other and a difference of opinion such as this will not make me any less willing to share a foxhole with someone like Sarge or Episcopus-or any of several others on this BB.
Blessings,
B