Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar535
Change for the sake of change is obviously no more compelling than tradition for the sake of tradition, and no more correct. Both ideas should be out of the equation.
But the idea that we can't do certain things because of a "slippery slope" is pretty ridiculous. I support gay marriage because I believe homosexual partnerships should be entitled to the same sorts of legal protections, health benefits, tax regulations etc. etc. that goes with a hetero marriage. If the word "marriage" upsets you, then I guess we could use "civil unions" or whatever else. As long as the equal protection is there, there's no discrimination and I don't have a problem with whatever you want to call it.
However, I don't support polygamy, **********, and pedophilia for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with gays or gay marriage. Any connection that would be made between those things and gay marriage, is pretty offensive to me. Why are we putting all of these things on some sort of pathway? Why can't we just judge gay marriage on its own merits?
|
I think the existence of the slippery slope is obvious, and cited a few examples of how we have gone down it to our detriment. I am against homosexual marriage because I think it threatens the institutions of marriage, family, and the traditional role of the husband and wife in procreation, and I think socitey as a whole and civilization as a whole suffers for it. I am not upset by any use of any word. That just trivializes things. Granting certain legal standing to homosexual partnerships is just a dodge. As to your final question, I, for one, am doing exactly that. I think my discussion is obviously clear on that.