Posted on 04/21/2007 3:00:41 PM PDT by Princip. Conservative
The results of that poll are surprising being the number of moonbats we have here in WA. It’s a good reflection on just how out of touch our lawmakers are with the people.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for remembering the legislature. Even if the gov was not actually elected into office, surely she can only sign into law bills approved by the legislature.
Washington is getting what they voted for, just like us Californians. Of course, as my wife says, “I didn’t vote for it!” :^)
I think you missed my point. I think it’s a weak argument because it is based on semantics and a technical reading of the law. See my post #26 in this thread.
I just think that claiming, “Technically, every homosexual already has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex,” is an infantile cop-out of an argument. It’s a technical argument that has no actual meat behind it. I was just trying to point out that there are better and more valid arguments against same-sex marriage (like your procreation one). There is no need to argue that traditional marriage should prevail on technical and procedural grounds when we can argue in favor of its actual merits.
P.S. I know this thread is dead, but I haven’t been able to log on for a few days, and felt compelled to respond. I hope you see this. Cheers!
The argument that a homosexual can marry a woman and a lesbian can marry a man may not appeal to some of you, but to claim otherwise would fundamentally deny one of the main purposes of traditional marriage: that of procreation. The argument is not just a technical argument. It pertains to the basic definition of marriage. Man + woman = baby (in the majority of cases). Man + man (or woman + woman) only = baby when heterosexuals are somehow involved. Left alone on a desert island, a non-heterosexual couple would produce no offspring. They are disconnected from the future and basically just focused on themselves.
Why would the government have any interest in getting involved in a purely adult relationship, whether it involve a civil union, gay marriage, two roommates, two bowling partners or anything else? The only reason why it gets involved in heterosexual marriage is because this will be the source of the future army, future government officials (for better or worse), future everything. This is why the claim that homosexuals can marry women is valid. Social conservatives want the traditional definition of marriage left as it is.
Heh, I don’t think the WA legistlature has represented my views in decades.
If Seattle seceded from the rest of the state, it’d really improve the government here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.