Why I support SSM, for my conservative friends.

[ford_prefect42]

On my last post, a lot of people made the completely valid point that SSM is a serious erosion of the institution of marriage. Specifically, it moves the focus of the institution from procreation and continuity of inheritance and makes the institution of marriage about "love". Romantic "Love" being a notably fickle beast, one can reliably predict

Comments

[mosinging1986]

It's not 'declining to discriminate' that hurts the other group - it's 'enforcing that they aren't allowed to discriminate either'.

See: florists, bakers, adoption agencies etc.

This nonsense of "discrimination" drives me nuts.

There were no homosexual individuals "discriminated" against. Period.

You show me where a homosexual was not served in any of those businesses that were sued.

Even if that were so, which it isn't, businesses discriminate all the time! Have you never seen "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs on a door? Ever heard of a club that turns away non members? Ever hear of a restaurant that has a dress code?

Businesses discriminate all the time. But again, that's not what even happened in these cases.

(Although some people are also complaining it indirectly hurts them due to weakening the moral fibre that holds society together, or something.)

Of course it does. Once marriage is changed to mean, in effect, "Whatever you wish", social anarchy will reign. It's the entire upending of the social order.

Oh, it's not going to happen all at one by next Tuesday or something, but the process has been set.

And people are *okay* with that. It's stunning to witness.

[baron_waste]

On the other hand, “Express Checkout, 20 Items or Less” is not binding; the cashier cannot refuse to check your purchases out no matter how many or few you have.  It's more in the nature of a request, not a directive.  Quite likely the “no shirt” signs are the same, tho' I've never heard of it being tested.

[ford_prefect42]

Actually, no shirt no shoes, no service is health law.

Conceded

[baron_waste]

That makes sense.  Ten four.

[mosinging1986]

And? It's still "discrimination", if you wish to call it that. So is a members only club, restaurants with dress codes, and other such things.

The point is that 1) discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing, 2) there were no homosexual INDIVIDUALS being discriminated against.

Different things are treated differently when they are DIFFERENT.

Men and women are not the same. Therefore, a M/F relationship is treated differently than a M/M or F/F one.

[baron_waste]

Fact is, I agree completely with every bit of this comment.

[mosinging1986]

Ok. I guess I've lost track of this conversation, then. Sorry.