Who to say it isn't what it is? Why do homosexuals have the right to dictate to everyone else, what it is?
Is it the duty of government to change tradition? I wasn't aware the constitution granted that right to the federal government.
Government shouldn't change what marriage is to begin with, and thus it's view is irrelevant.
I'd add in history and nature. How about you tell me who created 'marriage'. Who created the very first marriage?
It's not, which is why it should remain unchanged.
It's not up to government to decide...
Good, then it shouldn't decide to change it.
Does legalizing one type of murder mean murder is legal? Abortion being legal, and murder being illegal, is a legal contradiction.
All speeding is illegal... unless your in a Hummer, in which case, since you'll be safe, it's not illegal. Granted it might harm others if you speed, but since you won't be harmed, then laws against speeding do not apply to you. That would be a legal contradiction.
Same is true of the constitution and slavery. The constitution and our declaration of independence, both agreed that all men are created equal, and our nation was based on equality under the law. Yet we had legal slavery, which was a legal contradiction at the time. One that was rectified by the abolishment of slavery.
Legal Abortion and murder being illegal, is a legal contradiction that should be rectified.
Funny how many animals will die to protect their young, and us brilliant sophisticated humans, with our cheezy pride and selfishness, can come up with so many lame excuses for murdering out young.
I disagree with all murder. Rape, Incest, and just plain being selfish, are not valid reasons for murder. Further, if you've done any real research into women in those situations who commit infanticed, their research and personal testimonies show that instead of feeling better about it, they feel much worse. Now not only were their horrendously been taken advantage of, but now they are not innocent over the babies life. Abortion does not help these people. In fact, it has long term harm to their physiological well being.
As far as life threatening medical complications, that's such a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction, that most question if there is any validity to the point at all. Some of the largest hospitals in the US have not been able to report a single instance. As best I can remember, Abdominal pregnancy happens one in roughly 10,000, and only one in two hundred or so of those is actually life threatening. Life threatening being that it could threaten the life of the mother, not that it would.
That said, life threatening pregnancies are clearly identifiable, and thus, if you wished to make that case, I would be more willing to make that exception since we can't justify murdering the mother to protect a baby that would likely die anyway.
So your suggestion is... we should allow whether murder is justified, to be determined by the individual. Why yes, I'm sure that will play very well in prison populations across the country. If only you had sent that up to Timothy McVeigh's lawyers before he was executed.
Perhaps we should have left slavery up to the individuals as well. We can redefine a person to be 3/5ths while we're at it.
