The gay rights debate is over

[John Galt]

[Indy]

I will ask again: where does it say that homosexuality is immoral? What is the basis for this belief?

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

nah atheists will outnumber crotchworship CHRISTians in the future.

your days are numbered, bruh.

[exploited]

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

crusades beg to differ

[Professor]

I think we need to define "marriage". As I see it, there are 2 facets. There is the state-sanctioned institution, whereby certain rights and privileges are granted. Taxes, inheritance, end-of-life decisions, testimony, etc. Those are all different for married persons than they are for single people. The state has no right to deny any 2 people access to those things who want them. That's why there are civil unions and such.

Then there is the religious institution, which is defined by various religions. I don't think that these definitions relate much to this argument, so I'll leave them alone.

So, why does the state have any right to discriminate against a group of people and tell them who has access and does not have access to those aforementioned rights and privileges?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, why is the state involved in marriage at all?

There should just be laws allowing 2 people to file different tax returns (or no loophole at all). Or saying that any person can give any other person the right to make end-of-life decisions.