again, what sort of societal imperative is there for rewriting the rules? how will society as a whole benefit from legalizing gay "marriage"?
The same societal imperative that allowed blacks and women to vote, I suppose.
Black civil rights and women's suffrage were accepted by society because society was made to see that it is wrong to deny someone rights and privileges on the basis of something over which they have absolutely no control. you don't get to choose whether or not you're born black or a woman. I don't believe that's the case with gays; even if the science were conclusive (which is hardly the case) that individuals were born with a particular predisposition or alignment, that hardly equates to an irresistible compulsion to embrace the "lifestyle" or engage in certain patterns of behavior. I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and adhd, but I choose not to drink and I take the appropriate medication to address my particular adhd symptoms. an innate 'preference' (which is still far from proven fact) does not irrevocably bind an individual into a particular pattern of sexual behavior. therefore I refuse to equate the gay "civil rights" movement with those more legitimate movements.
Now a question for you: What if I can show you that society will benefit from allowing more marriages? What then?
I didn't say
more marriages. what specific good will come of legitimizing
gay "marriages" that wouldn't be achieved through, say, licensing gay civil unions? and I'm far from the only one who would expect a damn good reason to carve over a prominent facet of our way of life. examples taken from the decadence of failing empires near the bottom of their geopolitical trajectory are far from a ringing endorsement.
I'm asking a serious question. it's called a social contract for a reason; it was arrived at through careful negotiation among the people and if anyone wants to change it, they need to negotiate (through the channels recognized by the letter of the law) to do so.
What just happened in California
was a negotiation through appropriate channels.
what just happened in california was a subversion of the democratic process by an activist judiciary. prop 8 was brought to referendum via petition in accordance with the statutes of california and was enacted via popular vote. if it were really so unconstitutional then one of the myriad of challenges to it prior to the election should have succeeded. instead the consensus of the people, which was given force of law through the electoral process, was struck down after the fact through the abuse of judicial power.
