- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:
Not marry at all? Not!
Then can and did marry.
And as it is available to them, it was not discriminatory. Doesn't matter if they chose to participate in it or not.
Creating conditions that allow two of the same sex to marry is creating a new right as it did not exist.
Nothing can change that fact.
Their club, their rules their choice. I care not.
And as marriage is a contract that allows a union between those of the opposite sex, it does not discriminate.
Adding to it same sex is changing the foundation of the contract and is creating that which did not exist before.
It deserves it's own contract.
But only with the opposite sex. Those who have no interest in the opposite sex cannot marry at all, in practical terms. Just like allowing women to vote meant "redefining of universal suffrage", accomodating these people requires "redefining of marriage".
Not marry at all? Not!
Then can and did marry.
And as it is available to them, it was not discriminatory. Doesn't matter if they chose to participate in it or not.
Creating conditions that allow two of the same sex to marry is creating a new right as it did not exist.
Nothing can change that fact.
Founders of clubs have the right of association, which to me includes the right not associate.What would you say about a law that states: everbody has the right to join chess clubs, whether they play chess or not, but not macramé clubs - because it doesn't fit our current definition of "club" (And macramé is so gay)?
Their club, their rules their choice. I care not.
And as marriage is a contract that allows a union between those of the opposite sex, it does not discriminate.
Adding to it same sex is changing the foundation of the contract and is creating that which did not exist before.
It deserves it's own contract.