Yeesh! I almost gave up on finding this thread. It was buried under b tags.
Anywho.
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.
Whoa! Hold on there! That's not why either was accepted. Not at all.
Also, neither was very largely accepted in their times. They took a while.
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.
This is hard to argue. Not because your points are airtight, but because they're based on your own feelings.
In the end, the only response that would amount to much of anything would be to say, "I just don't see it that way." But that would just bring us to a standstill.
Truth is, I typed out a bunch of questions about your choice of words, but I don't think they nor the answers will get anyone anywhere.
(By the way, that's kinda why I quit the political debate business in the first place...but they pull me back in.)
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 had to read that last sentence three times. Seriously, you drop kicked my brain. I didn't even recognize the word
geopolitical.
Anyway, I only chose that example because you were talking about base of modern society (or something like that) and I wanted to show that same-sex marriages existed in such a context. There are other example from earlier in that empire's history, but that one carried a big name. Everything else I could find proved boring.
However, your question about the specific benefits is why I brought up civil rights and suffrage, despite the inevitable collective sigh. Neither came about because of their benefits to society at large. Not really. They happened because people judged the laws in place as unfair to one particular group.
what just happened in california was a subversion of the democratic process by an activist judiciary.
A subversion? Really?
I don't mean to mince words, but words do have both meaning and punch, and a subversion it was not. I know you're not the only person to paint it this way, but let's be real. The judge didn't go into a back room somewhere and pay off some guy cloaked in shadows to get his way. There is a system in place in California and in America, and there is a reason for it. What happened during the 2000 wasn't a subversion. Neither was this.
if it were really so unconstitutional then one of the myriad of challenges to it prior to the election should have succeeded.
That logic only works if you want it to. As it is, the case will surely move onward and upward.
