Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Keaven Freeman
Washington, DC
Recent Activity
-
Keaven commented on the article |Jim: Asside from the fact that every biblical scholar (as well as the bible itself) will tell you the sin of Sodom has *nothing* at *all* to do with homosexuality, I do appreciate where you're coming from, from a religious stand point. I am very religious as well.
however, religion has nothing to do with this conversation. We are talking about a secular government, and that governments responsibilty to ensure equal protection under the law.
One could make the aregument that the government has nothing to gain from issuing civil unions to its citizens, and therefor should refrain from doing so. However, they do issue them. And since they do, there is no lawful reason to deny homosexuals from entering into that same contract.
You can argue the theology of it all you like, but that has nothing to do with the civil issue. I don't really care if the church approves of my marrage or not, since there are no rights and responsibilities aforded me by the church uppon marriage... but there *are* rights and responsibililties aforded me by the secular governement, and it is those rights and responsibilities that you have no lawful claim to deny me.
-
Keaven commented on the article |
The argument is not what function marriage served in the fledgling communities of our past, but what function they serve today. In today's world, marriage is not simply an institution of procreation - many battles have been fought, and won, on that front already in the US (by heterosexuals looking for sexual equality and freedom), so it is on that foundation I make my claim: Since it has been established already in this country marriage is about the expression of love and commitment between two adults and the contract they make with the government, I reassert the point that there is no legal basis to deny homosexuals the same.
-
Keaven commented on the article |
Trying to muddy the water with slippery-slope, faulty analogous hoopla? Well.. all I can say is, if the love you have for your spouse is the same as the love you have for your dog, siblings, or your house.. well.. i feel sorry for your wife.
It is not nature I fight against, but the government, for entertaining the notion that Equal Protection Under the Law only applies to *some* American citizens.
-
Keaven commented on the article |
The logic fallacy is in your assumption Marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation. If we were to take your fallacy at face value, we should deny marriage licences to, a) couples where one party is sterile, b) elderly couples beyond child barring/rearing age, c) couples without the intent of having children.
Sorry, Jim.. but we are far beyond the age where Marriage = children. In this day and age, Marriage = Love. Unless the laws change, where marriage licences are only given to those who are capable of, and intending to, have children, your argument is invalid.
-
Keaven commented on the article |
The US version is called "Permission" and was produced by Public Interest (http://www.publicinterest.tv). It won the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Rights Award at the sixth annual "Media that Matters" film festival in 2006.
http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/watch/6/
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits