[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Fact_Checking_Alien 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Alright. I'll bite. Please explain to me your position on homosexuality, and I will do my best to ask further questions in curiosity. For, in my experience thus far, I have not had this opportunity. I will not downvote you, and nobody else should either, if you wish to actually have a discussion on the matter.

0
0

[–] Fact_Checking_Alien 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Law exists (and ideally should exist) to serve people - not to serve itself. Therefore, any law or regulation must serve a purpose to that people. As the people change over time, so must its laws, or you will find an increasing number of people unjustly imprisoned (as you are in the U.S). Appeals to tradition are inherently rooted in fallacious thinking, or naturalistic fallacies. It is not fallacious to say "A law which exist must require justification to serve just causes", and therefore I find my tent pitched in that camp.

In determining what position or ideas to create for a position, always first analyze the reasoning to find the simplest most logical solution. In this case, the former position is simply fallacious.

0
0

[–] SteelKidney 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Law exists (and ideally should exist) to serve people

Absolutely. In theory. In practice, this is pretty difficult as serving one group often entails trampling on another.

0
0

[–] wolflink009 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm 100% for gay marriage but I do think the default position in regards to marriage is having it solely be between a man and woman. That was simply what traditional marriage was. That said, the instant a gay couple wanted to marry the default should instantly switch to allowing it to happen, unless there was actual logical arguments against such a change barring religion (which there is not).