Being an adherent to a certain religion is a choice that is protected by federal law.
Marital status is also a choice that is protected by federal law.
It is illegal to discriminate against a persons choice in regards to religion, and it is also illegal to discriminate against a persons choice in regards to marital status.
Since religion and familial status are a chosen behavior, why is there a debate against homosexual people being afforded the same legal protections that these other chosen behaviors already enjoy?
To deny a gay person the protection of the law would equate denying a religious person the same protection (since they could change if they really wanted to).
2007-04-08 18:00:21 · 11 answers · asked by χριστοφορος ▽ 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Excellent point! Too bad you aren't a politician! I'd elect you to office in a second.
Unfortunately your question relies on logic, empathy and fair play, which are three things that are sorely lacking in the American Government these days.
The truth is: there is NO legal, ethical or religious excuse for discrimination in any form or against any particular group of people. Subjugating, discriminating or deeming a particular part of the populace as inferior is something that is completely against religious teachings. Denying gays the same economic status as heterosexuals is completely wrong. If we are going to deny gays their rights as equal citizens we may as well deny green eyed people their right to purchase eye ware. It makes no darn logical or ethical sense.
The only thing denying gays their equal status does is tell the world what a backwards, unfair, shallow and cold hearted country this really is.
2007-04-08 18:16:00 · answer #1 · answered by Silverwing6700 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most religous people consider homosexual behavior a sin, hence the debate. I would say that the majority of the country doesn't believe that consensual homosexuality should be a crime, so the only reason they remain against decriminalizing homosexuality is that without laws making homosexual activities illegal, there truly are no logical legal barriers to homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage for these people is the next step on the road to the destruction of our society, so you can imagine how strongly they're against it. While your logic is correct, the religous majority point to the bible and say "Gods word declares your activity a sin, and the punishment for that sin in the bible is death. You should feel lucky that we have compromised on merely sending you people to jail." Logical arguments don't mean anything to these religous folks anyway.
2016-04-01 04:32:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that behavior is illegal or immoral(legally)no
choosing a God is not choosing a living standard--that would follow
choosing to protect a sect(Homosexuals) is legalizing a moral issue.
There is a difference in a God and a life style.
2007-04-08 18:15:30 · answer #3 · answered by j.wisdom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can be married or unmarried. Both choices are "protected" But changing the definition of marriage is another matter. Marriage is an affirmation. I am sorry if you do not like it that a majority of the population is unwilling to affirm same sex marriage but there it is. And your comparison is not quite logical.
2007-04-08 18:07:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is more to homosexuality then a pure choice! the only choice that is apparent is when only someone decides to come forward with their sexuality and makes it public - THIS IS THE ONLY CHOICE IN THAT SITUATION!
choice or not , - it is pure segregation on the politicians part who feels , he has to play god , so that he may adhere and prove himself to a bunch of yahoos for his next terms elections and the so important voters!
morally this is not an issue for those politicians who oppose gay rights , it is only a matter of how much more power they can get for them selves! they couldn't give a rats butt about gays and lesbians , lets not kid our selves!
2007-04-08 18:23:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
could you get a little bit more convoluted in your argument? This is not even worth discussion. If I choose to drown cats as part of 'life style' should that be protected too? Get a life and get realistic.
2007-04-08 18:11:56 · answer #6 · answered by Blitzpup 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not if it hurts people...
Ie its fine to make sushi, curry, tangines.
Its fine to have festivals full of fun and colour.
Its fine not to drink alchol to avoid the trouble of booze.
but not fine to abuse or restrict half the popualtion ie girls, to dominate others, to force people into having sex with certain people and deny them being with others, multilate others murder others etc.
2007-04-08 22:03:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it does no harm to others absolutely yes. I think gays should marry. I want them to feel my pain of marriage.
2007-04-08 18:05:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
excellent argument on behalf of moral decency--now lets listen to the christians deny it
2007-04-08 18:06:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure - why not everything else is protected by big Govt.
2007-04-08 18:04:43 · answer #10 · answered by caciansf 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋