Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 9 2004, 07:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 9 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:29 PM
Remember sexuality in the constitution is a recent thing. If society decides that polygamy is ok, then which lifestyle is next? (thoretically)
|
Thats sort of an odd argument. If society decides polygamy is acceptable then polygamy is acceptable to society. After that, who knows. Whatever society then deems acceptable will be acceptable to society.
If society (the majority of it's people anyway) decide that something is right and fair and acceptable, shouldn't the laws of that society reflect that? [/b][/quote]
Then why not just "give a blanket right to practice any lifestyle choice you feel like"? (from Mike F)
If society decides that practicing a homicidal lifestyle is ok, then is it?
If the majority of society decides to go back to practicing a patriarcal lifestyle (where women have no rights) is it ok? If the majority of society decides to practice a Christian lifestyle and wants their laws to reflect that, is that ok?
Scenario - our society elected MPs by majority vote - there is a free vote and the majority of MPs feel that their constituantes are against gay marriage and vote against it and the law is turned down - is that ok? I bet that activist gay couple runs with the issue back to the SC for a binding ruling.
Where do you draw that line in the sand and is that line ever imovable?
remember, this is not entirely about gays getting married, it is about the definition of marriage. Gay people are not denied and economic or social benefits (that I am aware of) because the do not have a marriage licence (as a growing segment of the wedding market, gay couple who purchase a wedding licence may add some cash to city coffers).