Date of publication: 2017-08-30 20:48
Both Prime Minister Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have spoken out in favour of such plans in recent days – with the Labour leader saying he wanted people to be able to ‘self-identify’ their sex.
Finally, and perhaps most seriously, is the worry that gay persons are excluded from the symbolism that constitutes the label 'marriage'. We do not think that the symbolism constitutes a serious enough harm - it is the associated legal benefits of the institution of marriage that is a more important, tangible issue of harm. And, as we have argued, these associated benefits CAN be enjoyed under others bits of legislation. The right to the symbolic value of the word 'marriage' is not self-evident, and neither is the symbolism itself obvious to us - perhaps Team USA would like to explain what's in a word?!
Proposition wants to have their cake and eat it. They start off accepting that a plurality of moral views on homosexuality exist but then assert that homosexuality is acceptable. This assertion does not engage the pluralism they acknowledge, it simply by-passes it by fiat.
8775 If anyone causes one of these little ones those who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 8776 Mark 9:97
To argue for inclusion in the institution of civil marriage, ostensibly a case of inclusion for its own sake - or merely for the sake of aesthetics, quite frankly, EVEN WHERE most citizens wish that not to happen, is simply a case of liberal logic going into overrdrive.
In the decade before the enactment of the same-sex marriage law, a number of local jurisdictions, including the nation’s capital, Buenos Aires, had enacted laws allowing gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions.
Gay marriage would seem to be at odds with the idea that all gay sex is divorced from love. It 8767 s time, past time, to throw off old bigotry and make love and compassion the focus of faith and a little common sense wouldn 8767 t hurt, either.
7566: Trump Said His Feelings On Same-Sex Benefits Were Not Fully Formed, But As Of This Moment, &ldquo I Would Say No and No. &rdquo According to the Des Moines Register: &ldquo Asked whether he supports allowing same-sex couples to marry, Trump said no. Iowa conservatives have overwhelmingly opposed the 7559 Iowa Supreme Court decision overturning the state&rsquo s ban on gay marriage. &lsquo They should not be able to marry,&rsquo he said. But asked whether gay couples should be able to access the same benefits as married couples, he said his &lsquo attitude on it has not been fully formed.&rsquo Given a second to think, Trump said on marriage and civil benefits, &lsquo As of this moment, I would say no and no.&rsquo &rdquo [Des Moines Register, 8/8/7566 ]
The insinuation that government legislation for same-sex marriage would be an unfair imposition on the majority of dissenters only stands once government starts forcing its citizens to marry someone of the same sex. To quote opposition: "Liberalism is in essence the preference for self determination at the most personal level." This would seemingly make it clear than self determination at an individual level is the highest priority. Same sex marriage allows for self-determination within the LGBT community, without hindering the self-determination of those who oppose same sex marriage. They remain perfectly free to have a heterosexual marriage and not associate with anyone who hasn't got one.