Replies

But what is the silver bullet argument to kill off civil unions the same as homosexual marriages became a "no go"?

Being far from brilliant, I myself need help on this one. It's apparent that you'll have little success in modern day America if you argue on the basis or moral or religious grounds. My argument is that homosexuals ALREADY enjoy the rights ascribed to all other people. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex and enjoy the benefits of that marriage just like the rest of us. Of course they don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex. Should we have rights based on what people WANT? If we adopt the principle that individuals should be granted privileges outside the norm merely due to choices that they make, the ramifications would be ridiculous. We would be obliged to ban discrimination against anyone who engaged in any odd sexual practice (for example, those who enjoy public masturbation, having sex with animals, pedophilia, etc.). This is antithetical to the premise behind civil rights, which is that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of inborn traits such as sex or race. Nothing prevents homosexuals from maintaining a lifelong relationship with each other. Do normal (i.e. heterosexual) people have the right to "marry" a person of the same sex? No. Do they have the right to marry anyone they'd like? No. Could I marry my sister if I'd like (shutter)? No. You see, there is already a set of rules and conditions that apply to everyone equally. The fact that they choose to not meet one of the fundamental conditions (must be someone of the opposite sex) is there choice, but it is NOT the state's obligation to modify the rules to accommodate them. An argument could also be made that it's in the state's interest to NOT accommodate those who choose to forgo the conditions of marriage - because in doing so the state would be denying itself revenue (via tax breaks and so on) that it otherwise would have gotten. How's that? Help me out here.