A question for opponents of gay marriage

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@DSYoungEsq

You anti-robot bigot! :eek:

Wow. Talk about knee-jerk. Where did you see anything in my post to indicate I viewed robots negatively?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DSYoungEsq

ALL mores are arbitrary at some level.

Interestingly, most anti-SSMers would vehemently disagree with this statement–and I agree with them, that it’s rubbish. Only a moral subjectivist would say such a thing. I, and the majority of Americans, believe that many mores are not arbitrary; indeed, we believe that things are either right or wrong, and someone who thinks a wrong thing is right is actually and objectively wrong.

One basis for morality (one that is, I believe, logically flawed, although that’s okay because it’s not a system based on logic) is Biblical inerrancy. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. If we need to go into why this is an irrational system, we can (e.g., the fact that in this system, P^~P for certain values of P), but I believe the logical flaws in it are well-known.

Another basis for morality is Kant’s universal imperative. Under his system, gay marriage would be perfectly acceptable, if appropriately framed, e.g., “An unmarried adult may marry another unmarried adult who consents to the marriage.” This system is internally consistent and reasonable.

Another basis for morality is preference utilitarianism, under which system SSM would be perfectly acceptable.

Another basis for morality would be Tom Regan’s animal rights manifesto, under which system SSM would be perfectly acceptable.

If you’re a moral subjectivist (a lawyer, a moral subjectivist? be still my heart!), then sure, you hold the belief that all morality is arbitrary at heart. But there are ways to judge and rigorously evaluate the underlying rationale behind a moral code. Biblical inerrancy fails in this respect, which may be okay, because it rarely claims to be logical or internally consistent. Preference utilitarianism, I believe, does not fail, nor does social contractarianism.

[Lobohan]

@DSYoungEsq

I proposed a perfectly good negative societal effect. You just dismiss it as being not worthy of consideration. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a negative societal effect; it means you don’t agree that it is a negative societal effect.

What harm is that again? How does this immoral action provide a negative effect on society? And when answering, please tell me why this is different from someone who thinks that inter-racial marriage is immoral.

Now, if you can’t be persuaded that there are negative social effects from allowing same-gender marriages, then one would presume that you would see no reason to block them.

I can be persuaded. Because unlike you, I’m actually thinking about the subject. You’re accepting fiat immorality as a reason.

But that’s different than saying that someone who DOES see that as a negative societal effect has no rational basis for his/her desire to block them. As to the two of you, you are at impass, unless you can convince the other person that

a) their initial assumption is wrong (homosexual practices are not immoral),

I don’t have to show them it’s wrong. They have to show me why it should not be allowed. We’re denying rights here. We need a reason more substantive than “gays is icky”.

b) society won’t suffer from negative social effects if the marriages are allowed (for example by noting that homosexual sexual practices haven’t appeared hampered in California by the lack of even civil unions until recently, so allowing marriage isn’t going to increase much of anything), or

You have a basic misunderstanding about logic. I can’t provide evidence that nothing bad will happen. That is done by showing that there is no evidence for anything bad to happen. And as I say, other than people who are prejudiced against gays, nothing has been put forward.

c) the negative societal effects aren’t sufficient reason to allow the practice to be outlawed (same-gender marriages should be provided constitutional protection by application of accepted law on the subject, for example).

There have been no negative effects put forward other than it will make prejudiced people upset.

None of what you are doing here is designed, in my opinion, to accomplish any of these three.

You obviously have a powerful opinion of your reasoning abilities, but in this case you’re simply flailing around like a gaffed fish.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@DSYoungEsq

You had best be “casually” confident because to somehow equate the two is to do two things:

1. fail to understand the substantial difference between the two, and

2. IMHO really, really be insulting to the former slaves, who were treated in a way even in the 50s and 60s that bears very little relationship to how gays are treated in this country on the whole.

Of course there are differences in the situation, I’m just saying the arguments are the same, basically “us vs them; if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile; next thing you know there’ll be chaos in the streets, etc.”

I guess the former slaves are just gonna have to come to terms with my impudence, then, because I feel no need to modify my assessment.

But I understand, I think, what you are really trying to say, which is that you think most anti-gay people are anti-gay out of knee-jerk prejudice, without much thought on the subject, and thus act out of spite, rather than true rationality.

Well, spite and a lack of respect for “equal protection under the law”, but that’s a common enough attitude, where rights are granted to people we like and denied to people we don’t.

But you are right that morality as an arguing point is flexible and arbitrary. That’s why arguing against someone who is holding a viewpoint based on their “morality” is hard to do.

Not “hard” so much as “pointless”. Hence, I don’t bother. I prefer instead to use legal precedent and demonstrable issues of societal harm.

[DSYoungEsq]

@DSYoungEsq

Like it or not, the MAJORITY of Californians (at least, those who are willing to vote, and probably the majority of Californians in general) do not believe that it is moral to be married to someone who is of the same gender.

<snip>

Given, then, that it represents the “will” of the people, as much as any democratically passed initiative does, the question revolves around whether or not the will of the majority should be allowed to establish the morality of the state, via its laws on the subject. If we assume for the moment that the tide of history is turning towards the eventual national recognition of the right of same-gender couples to marry, and to have those marriages recognized legally by the state as marriages, indistinguishable from marriages involving couples that are hetero-gendered, then you simply must carry on with the effort, striving to educate people that either their mores should change, or that their insistence upon legislating that particular set of mores should wane.

Bolding mine.

@begbert2

You argue that there are more anti-SSMers than pro. You argue that IF we want to have SSM recognized, we should endeavor to change their morals. For this to make a lick of sense, you must be arguing that until popular opinion is in favor of SSM, the social more against SSM should be respected at a legal level.

Deal with it, dude.

I’ll take Reading Comprehension for $1000, Alex.

Read the part underlined, especially the bolded part. I said nothing about whether the “will of the people” should be respected as law. Indeed, I left this up as the defining question to be answered. The fact that I then went on to talk about what else can be done, assuming that this is indeed the tide of history, doesn’t negate that fact.

Next time, I suggest reading without being prejudiced by your apparent opinions on my viewpoints.

To make things clear: I have not made my opinion on same-gender marriages visible here in any way. I can’t recall, but I may have offered an opinion on the subject in a post a couple months back detailing my personal political viewpoints. If so, those who read that would know my viewpoint. Nor am I arguing for or against any particular viewpoint on this issue.

What I am doing is trying to show those who are arguing by use of demonizing tactics the flaw of their approach. Saying, “I disagree with your belief that homosexual sexual practices are immoral, because I cannot see where they interfere with other members of society, and I refuse to be restricted by someone’s overly strict interpretation of some several-thousand-year-old religious writings” is much different from saying, “You are just a bigot and your viewpoint is teh evil!” The former is persuasive; the latter is simply being bigoted in your own way. Indeed, the sad aspect to the Board of late is that discussions of so many political and social issues end up devolving into a huge shouting match where members on each side simply point at the other side and dismiss their reasoning out of hand with such assertions. It does nothing positive for discourse here, it doesn’t make your viewpoint any more legitimate, and it makes you look unreasonable in your own turn.

[Voyager]

@cwthree

IIRC, some of the “marriage protection” amendments that have passed do include language forbidding marriage or “anything substantially like marriage” in an attempt to preempt civil unions.

Yes, but not in California. The LDS backed arguments said that civil unions should be plenty good - so much so that a gay legislator in Utah was going to introduce a bill to allow gay civil unions there. I don’t know what its status is.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Bryan_Ekers

It should be easy to quantify, if it exists, in lowered employment, GDP per capita, birth rates, literacy, life expectancy, or any number of measurable benchmarks.

How do you propose your “perfectly good negative societal effect” be measured and proven to exist? magellan has proposed that it’ll take 40 years or so for the effects to be felt. Assuming your proposed effect exists, how would we know? What signs should we look for?

If it boils down to something unprovable like “Americans will become less moral”, then I don’t see how it is worthy of consideration, since there’s nothing tangible to consider.

Is everything important in life “tangible?” Is love tangible? Is happiness tangible? Is the ability to feel like we are a moral, upright society tangible?

If the only way you want to legislate is on the ability to establish tangible benchmarks, I submit there are many things you would want legislated that would not meet that standard.

[Lacunae_Quell]

@Valteron

You admit that you have no idea what the negative consequences would be in the immediate future. But you want us to imagine some negative consequences 40 years from now?

I mean, gimmie a clue, man! Do you mean that conservative old bigots will grumble more? Or that God will rain down fire and brimstone on America?

Will scientists discover that heterosexuals have taken to murdering their children because there is a killler gene in straight people that is activated 40 years after the first time they see two guys or two gals tieing the knot? If it were something that horrible, yes, I would support making ssm illegal again. I would be willing to make that sacrifice for my country.

But this sounds kind of like science fiction, does it not?

If you, an opponent of gay marriage, can’t imagine a single negative consequence for the forseeable future, does that maybe tell you something?

If my posting above lists seven countries outside the US that have ssm, some for almost a decade, without negative consequences, does THAT tell you something?

At least I admit that I don’t know exactly what would be a consequence of SSM.

Sure I can imagine a bunch of scenarios… but I mean… they’d either be laughed at as too far-fetched or not realistic…

so… the most realistic scenario I can think of would be… more terrorist attacks. The reason we have terrorist attacks now is because of over-zealous Muslims who take judgment into their own hands instead of leaving the judgment to God. We are attacked by extremist Muslims on 9/11 because they believe Americans to be idolaters. Plus, we have so much wealth that we hoard, or we force our way of life on other societies when it may not be the best thing for that society.

I can definitely see Muslim extremists hurling attacks against America for legalizing SSM.

…and on a more far-fetched note (well, I don’t consider it far fetched)… yes… God could very well punish America for allowing SSM. Look at how bad our economy is suffering right how… who is to say that this isn’t because God saw that America was not using her resources and economy wisely? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

I honestly don’t know though. I’m not God… but I do know God is infinitely patient and loving and kind and merciful and gracious to all people of all races… no matter who they are or what they do. I think more than anything at this time in humanity’s history, God just wants us to come to Him and love Him and be His people… regardless of our sexual preferences or what have you.

[begbert2]

@DSYoungEsq

Bolding mine.

I’ll take Reading Comprehension for $1000, Alex.

Read the part underlined, especially the bolded part. I said nothing about whether the “will of the people” should be respected as law. Indeed, I left this up as the defining question to be answered. The fact that I then went on to talk about what else can be done, assuming that this is indeed the tide of history, doesn’t negate that fact.

Next time, I suggest reading without being prejudiced by your apparent opinions on my viewpoints.

Your argument:
A
If Not B, then Not A.
(Applying modus tolens and arriving at B left as an exercise to the reader.)

You say tomayto, I say argument by rehetorical question. But seriously I don’t care anymore. If you want to pretend you’ve never made an argument except against ad-homineming, fine. (I’m a little less fine with your approach of defending yourself by ad homineming ME rather than just admitting and/or retracting…but whichever.)

But if all you’re after is to decry ad-hominemning one has to wonder why you’ve responded to me, then, because I’ve repeatedly dismissed ad-homineming as a valid argumentive approach.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Interestingly, most anti-SSMers would vehemently disagree with this statement–and I agree with them, that it’s rubbish. Only a moral subjectivist would say such a thing. I, and the majority of Americans, believe that many mores are not arbitrary; indeed, we believe that things are either right or wrong, and someone who thinks a wrong thing is right is actually and objectively wrong.

One basis for morality (one that is, I believe, logically flawed, although that’s okay because it’s not a system based on logic) is Biblical inerrancy. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. If we need to go into why this is an irrational system, we can (e.g., the fact that in this system, P^~P for certain values of P), but I believe the logical flaws in it are well-known.

Another basis for morality is Kant’s universal imperative. Under his system, gay marriage would be perfectly acceptable, if appropriately framed, e.g., “An unmarried adult may marry another unmarried adult who consents to the marriage.” This system is internally consistent and reasonable.

Another basis for morality is preference utilitarianism, under which system SSM would be perfectly acceptable.

Another basis for morality would be Tom Regan’s animal rights manifesto, under which system SSM would be perfectly acceptable.

If you’re a moral subjectivist (a lawyer, a moral subjectivist? be still my heart!), then sure, you hold the belief that all morality is arbitrary at heart. But there are ways to judge and rigorously evaluate the underlying rationale behind a moral code. Biblical inerrancy fails in this respect, which may be okay, because it rarely claims to be logical or internally consistent. Preference utilitarianism, I believe, does not fail, nor does social contractarianism.

Hmm, we could get into a morality discussion, and leap to philosophy if you wish, but that belongs in a separate thread.

However, arbitrary is I think where you are missing what I am saying. “Arbitrary” means : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something (from the M-W Online). At some point, a person makes an individual choice about what he thinks is “right.” That choice is not really based upon something inherently “right” about the position. As you note, biblical inerrancy is one way to determine this, and of course, biblical inerrancy is quite arbitrary, because it depends upon certain things that are hardly intrinsic to a given biblical more (which translation to consider valid, for example).

[Der_Trihs]

@Lacunae_Quell

My question… if homosexual marriage was legalized, and 40+ years down the road we started to see negative consequences that we knew, without doubt, were caused from the legalization of SSM… would those who support it be for making SSM illegal again?

How can anyone rationally answer that without some general idea of what “consequences” there would be ? One of the fundamental weaknesses of the anti-SSM people is that they can’t come up with a reasonable scenario for any such consequences. I’m not worried about any such “negative consequences” because I see zero way for such consequences to exist, much less actually happen. At least, no negative consequences that don’t already apply to heterosexual marriage.

Let’s turn the question around; what “negative consequences” would be necessary to justify the outlawing of heterosexual marriage ? That’s the level of consequences that would be necessary to justify serious consideration of outlawing SSM again.

@DSYoungEsq

You want to opress people who are murderers, I’m willing to bet. You probably also are quite happy to opress those who fail to pay their taxes, those who refuse to return library books, and those who can’t see well enough to pass the eye exam for a driving license. I don’t hear you fretting that you are “prejudiced” as a result.

Because not paying debts and hurting people are examples of objective harm, while being gay and married is not.

@DSYoungEsq

Which is fine until you start pointing at their conclusion and asserting not that it’s badly reasoned, not that it’s likely to lead to a society with flaws they and you would prefer to avoid, but that it’s inherently wrong because they are “bigots.” Which, as you will recall, is my only dog in this fight.

And it’s not a “dog” that should be brought up in a thread where the other side isn’t allowed to disagree with you.

@DSYoungEsq

@Bryan Ekers

While I don’t see the value of applying the label as anything other than an emotional appeal, I feel casually confident in pointing out that the arguments being used today are the same as were applied in the fifties and sixties to keep blacks in their place.

You had best be “casually” confident because to somehow equate the two is to do two things:

1. fail to understand the substantial difference between the two, and

2. IMHO really, really be insulting to the former slaves, who were treated in a way even in the 50s and 60s that bears very little relationship to how gays are treated in this country on the whole.

1 ) There isn’t any real difference.

2 ) Oppression isn’t a contest where only the worst off counts. And they were treated pretty damn bad, and probably mainly benefited from being able to hide better. Being killed for being homosexual or, if lesbian being gang raped in order to “convert” you is hardly good treatment.

@DSYoungEsq

But I understand, I think, what you are really trying to say, which is that you think most anti-gay people are anti-gay out of knee-jerk prejudice, without much thought on the subject, and thus act out of spite, rather than true rationality.

And what other reason would there be ? And no, “God said so” isn’t a rational reason.

@DSYoungEsq

If your starting point on the abortion topic is that a fetus is a “human being” entitled to the same legal protections as you or I have (an assumption rooted in religious morality for many), your discussion of abortion will get almost no where with someone who doesn’t have that assumption, because no matter what they say, no matter how reasonable their arguments, your morality is going to trump their rationality. It’s like punching a big airbag; it always pops back into place. :mad:

Because it’s a fundamentally worthless position to take, since as you yourself just admitted it’s NOT rational. And therefore, worthless. It’s an empty assertion, pulled out of thin air to support a fundamentally indefensible position designed to harm people.

Just like the anti-SSM position is fundamentally indefensibly and designed only to harm people…

[DSYoungEsq]

@begbert2

Your argument:
A
If Not B, then Not A.
(Applying modus tolens and arriving at B left as an exercise to the reader.)

You say tomayto, I say argument by rehetorical question. But seriously I don’t care anymore. If you want to pretend you’ve never made an argument except against ad-homineming, fine. (I’m a little less fine with your approach of defending yourself by ad homineming ME rather than just admitting and/or retracting…but whichever.)

But if all you’re after is to decry ad-hominemning one has to wonder why you’ve responded to me, then, because I’ve repeatedly dismissed ad-homineming as a valid argumentive approach.

As you will recall, all I did with respect to you (in re: this particular side discussion) was address your statement “You people” which lumped me in with a group that I’m not necessarily a part of, that you have no evidence I’m a part of, etc. And it is my viewpoint that your opinions of my arguments are tainted by your opinion of my own supposed partialities. Or at least were before I made known the fact that you might be making a bad assumption. Which is why I brought it up.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Lacunae_Quell

so… the most realistic scenario I can think of would be… more terrorist attacks. The reason we have terrorist attacks now is because of over-zealous Muslims who take judgement into their own hands instead of leaving the judgement to God. We are attacked by extremist Muslims on 9/11 because they believe Americans to be idolators. Plus, we have so much wealth that we hoard, or we force our way of life on other societies when it may not be the best thing for that society.

I can definitely see Muslim extremists hurling attacks against America for legalizing SSM.

News flash: they hurl attacks at us anyway. Letting gay people get married isn’t going to change that.

@Lacunae Quell

…and on a more far-fetched note (well, I don’t consider it far fetched)… yes… God could very well punish America for allowing SSM. Look at how bad our economy is suffering right how… who is to say that this isn’t because God saw that America was not using her resources and economy wisely? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

God hates it that we don’t kill gays, so he ruined the economy? Not buying it, Sparky.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Lacunae_Quell

so… the most realistic scenario I can think of would be… more terrorist attacks. The reason we have terrorist attacks now is because of over-zealous Muslims who take judgment into their own hands instead of leaving the judgment to God.
…
…and on a more far-fetched note (well, I don’t consider it far fetched)… yes… God could very well punish America for allowing SSM. Look at how bad our economy is suffering right how… who is to say that this isn’t because God saw that America was not using her resources and economy wisely? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

Putting aside the remarkable theological agreement between you and Muslim terrorists, I gotta wonder about a God who rewards the greatest growth in pornography in human history with the economic boom of the late nineties, who rewarded the anti-SSM drives of the early part of this decade with the current economic slump, and who would punish us for allowing SSM. Is He off His meds or something?

A moral system that works within a pluralistic society may be informed by religious views, but it may not be based on religious views. We are not a theocracy, and so pointing out that something violates a particular religion’s idea of morality is irrelevant to its legality: instead, we must look at what best allows folks to get along side by side without getting in one another’s way too much. We gotta muddle through (I say, paraphrasing Isaiah Berlin).

I do believe that one real harm is that certain busybodies would be displeased–but that’s not a basis for legislation. Someone’s gonna be displeased any which way it’s decided. We gotta look deeper than that. Are the folks who are displeased able to continue with their lives unchanged except for this displeasure, or are they going to encounter the effects of it in myriad different ways?

[Der_Trihs]

@DSYoungEsq

As you note, biblical inerrancy is one way to determine this, and of course, biblical inerrancy is quite arbitrary, because it depends upon certain things that are hardly intrinsic to a given biblical more (which translation to consider valid, for example).

No, Biblical inerrancy is simply wrong. The Bible CANNOT be inerrant since it contradicts itself; it’s logically impossible.

And the little thing you are ignoring is that the anti-SSM position does ACTUAL HARM. It hurts people, it oppresses them. That means you need something better than some baseless version of “morality” pulled out of thin air to justify it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DSYoungEsq

Hmm, we could get into a morality discussion, and leap to philosophy if you wish, but that belongs in a separate thread.

However, arbitrary is I think where you are missing what I am saying. “Arbitrary” means : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something (from the M-W Online). At some point, a person makes an individual choice about what he thinks is “right.” That choice is not really based upon something inherently “right” about the position. As you note, biblical inerrancy is one way to determine this, and of course, biblical inerrancy is quite arbitrary, because it depends upon certain things that are hardly intrinsic to a given biblical more (which translation to consider valid, for example).

Thanks, but I’m clear on what “arbitrary” means. Are you clear on what “moral objectivism” means? Your position is radically subjective, to the extent that you appear to deny the coherence of an objective moral system. You are, I believe, incorrect. (You’re correct, though, that an exploration of why I think you’re incorrect is best suited to another thread: in this thread, all I ask is that you acknowledge that you, as a moral subjectivist, are in a minority among voters, and among SSM opponents would be a tiny minority, if you were one.)

[Bryan_Ekers]

@DSYoungEsq

Is everything important in life “tangible?” Is love tangible? Is happiness tangible? Is the ability to feel like we are a moral, upright society tangible?

Fine. Assume the homosexual population is about 10%, and half of these would get married if they could, in a country the size of the U.S. gay marriage leads to an increase in happiness for an estimated 15 million people. Half of these marriages will likely end in divorce, while others will last until the death of one of the partners, which may be several decades in the future.

In contrast, there will be in increase in unhappiness by the population that opposed gay marriage. From observation based on other countries where gay marriage is already in place, most of these people will get over it fairly quickly and just shrug it off, their attention moving onto more pressing matters.

If the goal is to increase happiness, therefore, gay marriage should be made legal.
There - I’ve taken happiness into account. Satisfied?

If the only way you want to legislate is on the ability to establish tangible benchmarks, I submit there are many things you would want legislated that would not meet that standard.

I don’t know what you’re assuming about me. Can you give me an example of something you think I’d want legislated on a “tangibility” standard?
And, yes, I don’t think you’re funny, if that was your intent.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Der_Trihs

How can anyone rationally answer that without some general idea of what “consequences” there would be ? One of the fundamental weaknesses of the anti-SSM people is that they can’t come up with a reasonable scenario for any such consequences. I’m not worried about any such “negative consequences” because I see zero way for such consequences to exist, much less actually happen. At least, no negative consequences that don’t already apply to heterosexual marriage.

Let’s turn the question around; what “negative consequences” would be necessary to justify the outlawing of heterosexual marriage ? That’s the level of consequences that would be necessary to justify serious consideration of outlawing SSM again.

Because not paying debts and hurting people are examples of objective harm, while being gay and married is not.

And it’s not a “dog” that should be brought up in a thread where the other side isn’t allowed to disagree with you.

1 ) There isn’t any real difference.

2 ) Oppression isn’t a contest where only the worst off counts. And they were treated pretty damn bad, and probably mainly benefited from being able to hide better. Being killed for being homosexual or, if lesbian being gang raped in order to “convert” you is hardly good treatment.

And what other reason would there be ? And no, “God said so” isn’t a rational reason.

Because it’s a fundamentally worthless position to take, since as you yourself just admitted it’s NOT rational. And therefore, worthless. It’s an empty assertion, pulled out of thin air to support a fundamentally indefensible position designed to harm people.

Just like the anti-SSM position is fundamentally indefensibly and designed only to harm people…

I’m sorry, Der Trihs, but I think you will find that a very large portion of the population of the country, and indeed the world, would disagree that religion and religious viewpoints aren’t valid bases for arriving at conclusions of morality. I understand that you don’t agree that they should be, but I disagree with your proposition that they cannot be. The can be; they simply have to be reviewed and scrutinized the same as a morality conclusion arrived at from any other source.

Suppose my personal religious viewpoint says that it is morally wrong to discriminate against other humans. God asked us to love others, not to hate them. There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual sexual behavior, so treating someone who is homosexual differently from someone who is not is not moral. Thus, based upon my religious viewpoint, I conclude that the country should allow same-gender marriages.

Is my conclusion inherently incorrect, since it relies upon my religious beliefs? Suppose my own personal prejudices would be to view homosexuality as “icky,” and threatening. Should I ignore my religious teachings, revert to my unconscious feelings on the subject, and change my opinions?

The argument in favor of legally recognizing same-gender marriages needs no help from the “everything they say is bigoted!” department. Indeed, such argument, in my opinion, retards the progression of the movement.

[Lacunae_Quell]

The reason I don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to marry is solely because they can’t naturally reproduce with each other. I believe marriage is a sacred institution not only because a man and woman love each other, but because they want to start and raise a family and teach them to continue to procreate.

I don’t necessarily think homosexuals should have any more or less rights than a married couple if they want to spent their lives together… but I think there should be some other form of legal bonding besides marriage for homosexuals… yes… it could be called… bondage.

Marriage throughout history has always been a sacred bonding of man and woman to become “one flesh”. I believe it should stay that way… and just because I believe this way doesn’t mean I hate homosexuals… I just think they should stop whining and be happy with what they have and if they can’t be then come up with some other form of legal bonding that won’t offend the people who believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.

I don’t support polygamy either… and I don’t believe it’s possible to have more than one wife. I believe in the case of a polygamist that the woman he married first is his wife, and the other women would just be his mistresses.

Whatever will be will be, though. I’m not trying to force my beliefs or opinions on anyone else, and the world is going to do whatever she wants to do… I’m just along for the ride. I might not like the tune being sung, but I don’t have to sing along with it… and it doesn’t mean I have hatred towards those who do sing along to the tune… it just means they’re annoying the piss out of me… but I’ll live.

I’ll live my way… you live yours…

[DSYoungEsq]

@Der_Trihs

No, Biblical inerrancy is simply wrong. The Bible CANNOT be inerrant since it contradicts itself; it’s logically impossible.

And the little thing you are ignoring is that the anti-SSM position does ACTUAL HARM. It hurts people, it oppresses them. That means you need something better than some baseless version of “morality” pulled out of thin air to justify it.

I don’t disagree. I’ve never said anything to the contrary, as you will note.