- 21 Aug 2009 14:46
#13136308
Not in your principle, whatever that may be. An existing convention is already established, and thus the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn it. There may also be reasons to restrict something even if it is alleged to be reasonable and ethical. Ugly architecture for instance is neither unreasonable nor unethical in the strict sense, but it is an eyesore and people benefit for it being banned.
Indeed. Liberalism must be attacked on every front by any means necessary. I don't see any reason why homosexuals, another tool of liberals, should be exempted.
The raising of more "tolerant" persons is not a minor point, as Western civilization is currently in slow-motion self destruction brought on by a plague of "tolerance".
Quercus Robur wrote:not in principle. The default position is that people do things and the law interferes when it is reasonable and ethical for it to do so.
Not in your principle, whatever that may be. An existing convention is already established, and thus the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn it. There may also be reasons to restrict something even if it is alleged to be reasonable and ethical. Ugly architecture for instance is neither unreasonable nor unethical in the strict sense, but it is an eyesore and people benefit for it being banned.
Quercus Robur wrote:As to the rest of your post your objection is really more against liberalism than gays marrying.
Indeed. Liberalism must be attacked on every front by any means necessary. I don't see any reason why homosexuals, another tool of liberals, should be exempted.
Quercus Robur wrote:It is however, a minor point in my eyes as it does not justify restricting gay marriage but promoting successful family models or at the most limiting gay adoption.
The raising of more "tolerant" persons is not a minor point, as Western civilization is currently in slow-motion self destruction brought on by a plague of "tolerance".