pax
ONE love, blood, life
BLS-
What kind of scientific "evidence" are you talking about? Most scientific evidence up to now has indicated that homosexuality has always existed, not only among humans, but other higher primates as well (if I am not mistaken). About the only evidence that might make me rethink my case is if gay parents were proven to be categorically harmful to children, which I sincerely doubt would happen, as (although these studies are few) studies up until now find no significant differences between children rasied by gay couples and children raised by straight ones.
Your argument is valid, yes, in terms of denying same-sex unions in your particular religious context. If you and your church feel they are inappropriate, your church cannot be compelled to perform such unions or recognize them. The Catholic Church has been selectively performing and recognizing some marriages and not others for a long time; it's perfectly legal. But the government offers equal protection under the law to all persons--a phrase which, incidentally, IS in the Constitution. There has not yet been a compelling LEGAL argument against allowing homosexuals to marry.
Which means, at least for me, that you are free to disapprove of such unions and choose a church that also disapproves of them. But our government is not free to pick and choose in a similar way. Discrimination on the basis of arbitrary distinctions (skin color, gender) has been struck down in the past and will, I hope, be struck down again. Any legal argument offered against same-sex marriage is strikingly similar to old arguments against "miscegenation" (which is certainly still a frowned-upon practice in some places, but it is not *illegal*).
No one believes you don't have the right to believe what you believe, BLS. But I, and I suspect others, believe that you do not have the right to compel your government to enshrine your belief in law when it is inherently discriminatory against other persons. As the old saw goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."
What kind of scientific "evidence" are you talking about? Most scientific evidence up to now has indicated that homosexuality has always existed, not only among humans, but other higher primates as well (if I am not mistaken). About the only evidence that might make me rethink my case is if gay parents were proven to be categorically harmful to children, which I sincerely doubt would happen, as (although these studies are few) studies up until now find no significant differences between children rasied by gay couples and children raised by straight ones.
Your argument is valid, yes, in terms of denying same-sex unions in your particular religious context. If you and your church feel they are inappropriate, your church cannot be compelled to perform such unions or recognize them. The Catholic Church has been selectively performing and recognizing some marriages and not others for a long time; it's perfectly legal. But the government offers equal protection under the law to all persons--a phrase which, incidentally, IS in the Constitution. There has not yet been a compelling LEGAL argument against allowing homosexuals to marry.
Which means, at least for me, that you are free to disapprove of such unions and choose a church that also disapproves of them. But our government is not free to pick and choose in a similar way. Discrimination on the basis of arbitrary distinctions (skin color, gender) has been struck down in the past and will, I hope, be struck down again. Any legal argument offered against same-sex marriage is strikingly similar to old arguments against "miscegenation" (which is certainly still a frowned-upon practice in some places, but it is not *illegal*).
No one believes you don't have the right to believe what you believe, BLS. But I, and I suspect others, believe that you do not have the right to compel your government to enshrine your belief in law when it is inherently discriminatory against other persons. As the old saw goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."