+211 "Legal marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, so it should stay that way." By that logic, forensic evidence should be illegal because cases have always been proven without them, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And by that logic, we should repeal women's rights; since for many years, only men could vote, work certain jobs, etc. And what about black people? Should they be stripped of their rights too? I hate when people assume that just because something has been a certain way for a while, that it shouldn't be changed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Inb4 stupid ass moral debate about whether gay marriage is right or wrong

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I know, right? That is just like saying "This should not be legalized because it isn't legalized."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just think that its stupid how so many gay people, aren't truly gay. If their born gay, then they can't change that. In a British study, a large percentage of gay people are gay due to their environment and influence from others. I don't want to argue though

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Even if it is because of environment, that doesn't mean the person had any control over it. Whether it is nature or nurture, the person didn't just wake up one morning and decide to be gay. They are definitely still "truly gay". (I realize you're not trying to argue- I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm just expressing the flaws I see in your statement)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not saying that I disagree with the idea of gay marriage, but that comparison isn't really fair as Legal marriage being between a man and woman is a definition whereas forensic evidence is a new tool to assist in reaching the same ends as before with greater accuracy. It's an illogical analogy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Surely you don't think juries are supposed to judge based solely on what they think, right? It's also based on a set of legal definitions. You can't just say, "I think they're guilty because I hate their haircut." No, there's actually a specific criteria of saying that someone is guilty, and the criteria had to change based around forensic evidence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not debating that, I just don't think the comparison makes sense. The two things are too different for a reasonable analogy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well no, not really. The rules were changed around the discovery of forensics, weren't they?

by Anonymous 13 years ago