School choice and reform, Atlas Shrugged, Ronald Reagan, Ann Coulter, intelligent discussion, conservative ideals, and snarky comebacks.
While I understand proudgayconservative’s viewpoint for opposing marriage as a legal and governmental institution, I respectfully disagree and hold a slightly different viewpoint. I also think the more answers that question has, the less confusion and ignorance there will be about it.
Marriage is a governmental and legal institution, a contract, if you will. (Whether or not it is necessary or good is a different conversation entirely, and not something I want to discuss here.)
So, heterosexual people can enter into that specific legal contract and gain the numerous rights that come with entrance into that contract. Homosexuals, also citizens of the United States of America and thus possessing the same rights at heterosexual citizens under the Constitution of the United States of America, are having their rights violated by not having the freedom to enter into that legal contract like the rest of America.
The parts I disagree with liberals on are as follows: there shouldn’t be a federal order to legalize gay marriage; there should be a law that makes banning homosexuals from marrying illegal. The only reason I argue this is because of the legal bit, not “love is a human right” and all that stupid mushy stuff because marriage for love is a relatively new and useless institution anyway.
Also, I disagree with forcing churches and religious institutions to perform marriages for LGBQ individuals, which violated the separation of church and state (something many liberals cite as an argument on the other side of this debate).
I believe I should have the same legal rights as every other American, but I do not believe forcing religious institutions to do something they don’t want to do is right.
I don’t necessarily agree with you, but that is another way to look at the situation.
Recent PostRead more