Gay marriage in NSW/Australia (1 Viewer)

[poloktim]

In case of a constitutional crisis!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

lol I think neo_o's comments may have been a reference to Watergate.


Remember Senator Ervin and his pocket constitution?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Actually the very definition of marriage in western society derives directly from the christian bible, thus it is a traditional union that can only be true for one man and one women (the idea behind this is genreally speaking, child production, another thing gays cannot do).

Marriage is no longer a religious institution. It carries legal and social consequences.

This is a problem how? A gay man can marry a gay woman, a straight man cant marry another man - neither group has overbearing rights one way or the other.

Not true. A heterosexual person can marry the person he or she is physically attracted to, yet a person that is gay is prohibited from doing so.

And its given to normal citizens based on the definition from which it was derived, and the benefits to the state (children) that it yields. Marriage is not a special right, correct, changing its very definition would be however, if not right out minority favouritism.

Not true. Favouritism is treating one person or group differently than another. Since the claim is that "everyone should have the right to marry", this is not favouritism.