View Single Post
Old 10-20-2006, 10:33 PM   #180
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I, at least, am not saying that gays should not be allowed to cohabitate in a secular society without some protections of law. I merely agree with those that say there's no need to call it marriage.
There are quite a few gays that want to be 'married.' If there is no reason not to allow them - because 'marriage' is not an state institution that requires anything other than a willingness by both parties to abide by the commitment (aka contract) - then why are they not allowed? I'd be quite wary of taking 'status quo' or 'definitions' of marriage as a reason. Those haven't been very useful in the past on deciding similar issues in a way conducive to greater freedom.

By the way, I do think that absolutely everything should be allowed by default as long as it does not impact other people's freedoms. In my opinion, the right of heterosexuals to be not offended - which is a choice of theirs - does not justify actively excluding and descriminating against homosexuals in regard to the benefits/name of marriage, particularly when the situation of 'married' homosexuals is essentially the same as a 'married' heterosexual couple. There is no possible passive descrimination because the Constitution specifically states that all citizens are equal under the law.

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 10-21-2006 at 12:43 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: