My guess is the next case to be heard will be filed by NAMBLA.

Then this comment will appear again.

<snip>
This is fully as repugnant morally as not allowing racial minorities to
marry whom they wish, and for the identical
reason.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Maynard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Enlightenment?


On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:25:50PM -0500, Cornelius, Rosanne wrote:
> The divorce rate in the US is already at about 50% so let's run the
> numbers even higher.

This is the only argument for prohibiting marriage between two adults of
whatever gender that has any sort of logical consistency, instead of being
an immediate appeal to religion. As such, it deserves a rebuttal.

Basically, the argument goes "if gay men and lesbians were allowed to marry,
then some number of them who are currently in heterosexual marriages will
divorce and go marry someone of their own gender." Let's ignore for the
moment the fact that many in such situations are already divorcing and
going to live with their partner, without the benefit of marriage. Even if
this weren't already happening, that argument says that it's better for
society to keep people in marriages that are miserable, rather than allow
those people to become happier in a long-term committed relationship with
someone they love, and grant that relationship the same recognition as those
between people of different genders.

In short, it's an argument for continued human unhappiness, just because
someone is a sexual minority. This is fully as repugnant morally as not
allowing racial minorities to marry whom they wish, and for the identical
reason.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *