Only I don't see gay marriage as social and moral decline. I am against phenomenons as bare-back parties or high way rest areas that have to be closed due to explicit gay activities. Two people that truly love eachother and vow to stay together 'till death do them part, I see nothing degenerate in that.
Ted, could you please define "Love".
I
love my children, but I'm not wanting to, nor legally allowed to marry them.
* I don't advocate gay marriage, I just don't oppose them.
Well,.... I do.
* That the Roman empire was degenerate is very true. But to pin the entire decline and disappearance of these civilisations solely on gay sex... That is not what I was taught in school. I remembered something about a horde of Visigoths and burning down Rome...
I didn't say that either. In fact I actually went so far as to state that this was not the sum cause, but it seems that everyone who disagrees with my view conveniently misses this sentence. My implication was, as I interpreted what I was taught, that The Roman empire fell to the Visigoths because their moral decay had led to them becoming "degenerate and soft" and no longer willing to make the sacrifices necessary to defend their empire, they were too wrapped up in enjoying their degeneracy.
I have to agree that the environment is playing an important issue on views. In most parts of Europe it isn't considered anti-social and more and more countries legalize gay marriage. So I'd say that your views on the topic are partly made by your surroundings and partly by one's own experience and upbringing.... and so are mine.
Well,... as I pointed out in an earlier post, several European countries are already reaping the results of poor judgement on similar "Politically correct" matters. Policies on acceptance of refugees, soft laws regarding the use of "recreational" drugs, (Netherlands); the acceptance of the use of hard drugs in public places (Switzerland) The Netherlands now finds it necessary to build prison barges to house "refugees" (actually illegal immigrants) until they can have their case heard and be deported, the conditions on these barges has already become the subject if discussion by several International bodies regarding the keeping of prisoners. The story is much longer but you may Google it for yourselves.
I just don't see the need for the rest of the world to make the same costly mistakes.
You don't have to accept it, but you don't have the deny them their rights either.
I feel that the word Rights, is being used somewhat loosely here.
All acts that are not specifically disallowed by law, are not necessarily a "Right".
*Rights, Under the law as administered in Australia, and I suspect in the USA. There is no law specifically stating that homosexuals have this as a right in law, (a statute), so what you are talking of, is what is defined as an
imperfect right, (there is no law specifically forbidding it, which makes it "allowable", until challenged, when it becomes "disputable") or to be more precise is is actually an "
expectation", which means, so long as society resists it or until is is legislated for, it carries no legal or moral weight (is is legally Null).
I strongly suspect that this means that they have no "Right" as defined in law. This it seems would make it a "Privilege", I'm not even going to start reading the definition of Privilege as it is longer than Rights. If you wish to, it is found under "Law of Torts"
The example given in Butterworth's Law is that of a person begging for money. That individual is allowed to ask for money except where specifically denied by law, however they have no legal backing as it is only an
expectation based on the goodwill of the person being asked.
I'll leave it at that because it runs to three pages of very small print, nearly all of which is nothing to do with our subject. Book provided by Justin, an LLB (Hons) Melb.
I'm no Lawyer, but I reckon I've got the guts of it right, and it's already wasted 2 hours of my time.... Interesting though.
