Can Michael Steele Really Reframe Gay Marriage as an Economic Issue?
> again……….. homosexuality is deemed legal.
But homosexual marriage is not.
> all legal inhabitants are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Even if, in their pursuit of happiness, they require me to accept their lifestyle? Now, my happiness is being infringed. Does my happiness count?
Today, it’s homosexuality. Tomorrow, what other behaviors will be constitutionally protected?
At least now we have arrived at the crux of the matter. It’s not okay for me to force my morality on them, but it’s perfectly okay for them to force their morality on me. With your approval.
> its called equal protection. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. even an imbecile is aware of benefits of being deemed married in this country.
I asked earlier, where in the Constitution is the idea is the idea of homosexual marriage defended as a right?
Look me in the eye and tell me the Framers of the Constitution intended this reading of their words.
And if original intent means nothing to you, it should. I thought this was a conservative web site. Sheesh.
> and there is no equality of benefits between marriages and civil unions
Fine: make them equal. No argument from me. If they were equal, would that be enough? I know the answer, but I just want to hear you say it, and expose it for the red herring that it is.
> in actuality civil unions are a slap in the face. its saying that “even though you are equal,and your bonding it is out of the same spirit as ours, namely mutual love, respect, devotion,affection,and trust it is not equal to ours.
So it is not their “rights”, but *my* attitude that needs to be changed. Is that what you’re saying?
And what part of the Constitution prohibits “slapping someone in the face”?
But of course, I too am being slapped in the face, by being told I must accept their union as valid. Does my face count, too?
And let’s regroup here: I don’t want to do anything to force, or prohibit, and action on the part of gays. Live and let live, I always say. But I’m the intolerant one, in your eyes.
And gays want to force me to grant approval for their relationship. I guess “live and let live” is not a big deal among self-styled libertarians, is it? Not when it’s a moral issue they happen to care about.
