marc9000 writes:
But he shouldn't have the right to the public institution of marriage, if the majority sees it as a public burden.
marc - can you describe what the public burden of a homosexual marriage is? In your own words? I'm trying to think of one.
Traffic jam due to the wedding? Ooo, lets just get rid of all weddings, then. No - that's not right...
Fewer traffic-blocking gay pride parades because the need to assert cultural acceptance has been met a little bit. Wait. Fewer traffic jams, not more...sorry.
A drop in the abortion rate from within married couples, because every child a homosexual couple has is most definitely wanted - wanted to the extent that they have to do something they don't want to do to get a child. What if it had turned out that the only way you could have a child biologically was to mate sexually with a homosexual partner? But you still wanted a child bad enough to do it?
Oh - sorry - was a drop in abortion rates a public burden? Ooops.
More jobs for divorce lawyers? Yeah, that could be bad. That's it. Damn lawyers. See? Now your taking on the American Bar Association. Hmmmmmm.
Maybe you can come up with something, because, gosh darnit, I sure can't. Help me out here.
- xongsmith, 5.7d