Just a few ramblings from a confused guy. Former military, former cop. Husband. Father. Student. Role playing gamer, on intermittent weeks. Avid reader. Internet addict. Small "l" libertarian. Too many others to mention. The views and opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not reflect those of any official agency or government or species. Names have been changed to protect the guilty; God protects the innocent as a matter of course.
“May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.”
"This report is maybe 12-years-old. Parliament buried it, and it stayed buried till River dug it up. This is what they feared she knew. And they were right to fear because there's a whole universe of folk who are gonna know it, too. They're gonna see it. Somebody has to speak for these people. You all got on this boat for different reasons, but you all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, 10, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people . . . better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave." ~ Captain Malcom Reynolds
I'm sorry that I have to disagree, on the basis that one of his core assumptions is incorrect.
Marriage is not a right in the same sense as owning property or being allowed to vote. It is not a right in the same sense as being represented in court or being permitted to travel freely. It is a special status granted by society for certain purposes, none of which are fulfilled by two men or two women having sex.
I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve with me. If marriage is nothing more than a "right" like the right to free speech, why deny it to polygamists or biological family members?
IF I was convinced that it was a basic individual human right, however, THEN I would agree with his position.
2 comments:
A good writer and smart too. Not a bad combination!
I'm sorry that I have to disagree, on the basis that one of his core assumptions is incorrect.
Marriage is not a right in the same sense as owning property or being allowed to vote. It is not a right in the same sense as being represented in court or being permitted to travel freely. It is a special status granted by society for certain purposes, none of which are fulfilled by two men or two women having sex.
I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve with me. If marriage is nothing more than a "right" like the right to free speech, why deny it to polygamists or biological family members?
IF I was convinced that it was a basic individual human right, however, THEN I would agree with his position.
Post a Comment