Oh, one more thing. In the previous post's comment box you were quoted as having said that "A government's job is to represent the majority of people. That's how they are supposed to make their decisions - by taking the general opinion of their constituents, and doing what they want." And while that is true, it is also a government's job to defend minorities.
Vanessa | 08.10.05 - 3:33 am
And Lisa's response, which I actually found quite interesting as a way of rationalizing her stance on the issue. I personally had never thought of it like that, so it came as a bit of a surprise. It made me smile at how clever it was. :-)
I agree. But the homosexuality thing isn't about defending rights, it was about changing the definition of marriage.
Up until just a little while ago, homosexuals had the exact same rights that everyone else did. No one could marry another person of the same gender. I couldn't, you couldn't, no one could. So it wasn't about defending the rights of anyone, it was about changing the definition of marriage, which is what most people seem to have an issue with.
Lisa | 08.10.05 - 8:11 pm
The difference is, heterosexuals didn't want to marry someone of the same gender. If you want to equate rights, it would be like saying you didn't have the right to marry the person you fell in love with. You've got the cart before the horse. They didn't have the same rights, because you got to marry the person you fell in love with if you wanted, because you were heterosexual and fit the old standard and religious definition of marriage, the old outdated and incorrect one that says that homosexuality is an abomination in Gods eyes and teaches you to be the bigot that you are. :-)
Thankfully, enough people aren't living in an archaic religious based fantasy world that they realize that the real difference is that there were normal adult people who were in love with each other, spending their lives together as lovers and wanted to be married as the normal people that they were, and they couldn't because of a law that did not grant them equal rights... that expressly prevented them from being like everyone else and perpetuated the stereotype that they were deviants who had simply made a sick and perverse choice in violation of Gods will.
It's like having a law against insulin. We'd both have the same rights, but it certainly wouldn't bother me like it would a type 1 diabetic, who really couldn't just make the choice not to be one now could he.
But a cute approach to rationalizing discrimination to one's self none the less. ;-)
Technorati Tags / Same-sex Marriage / Gay Marriage / Marriage / Dicrimination / Rights / Religion / Democracy / Minority