Bosstone Thank you for putting that so succinctly. It’s amazing how difficult it is for others to comprehend such a simple concept.
The problem I have is that number two need not be caused by SSM. We can have both. We are expanding the definition to include more people rather than ruining it. Nothing need change for any married man and woman because of SSM. The whole downhill slide of society argument is a boogyman in the closet. It only has the influence that people grant it within thier own mind. Surely irrational fear is not an adequate reason to deny human beings equal rights.
Since there really is no boogyman in the closet it’s correct to point that out. It’s also a good thing to call out religious myth when it fucks with people’s rights.
I think the term** literal** harm is completely false. People will imagine they’ve been harmed as did those who opposed interracail marriage and women’s right to vote. In the long run, was anybody literally harmed. Please show and example.
Sometimes people need to be dragged kicking and screaming toward waht’s actually good for them in the long run.
So telling the truth harms the lie and somehow harms the person who has accepted the lie as truth?
Evidently so, for negligible values of “true”.
The “effect” is that some religious types might feel bad, isn’t it? If that’s the sum total of your objection then I can only respond thus:
[ul][li]I acknowledge that SSM will make some religious types will feel bad.[/li][li]The societal harm in this is trivial compared to the societal benefit of gay marriage.[/ul][/li]
On a cost/benefit analysis, I therefore side with gay marriage. If you choose not to respond any more to me, that’s fine. I had grounds for victory days ago, for what it’s worth.
As a minor challenge, if you and I are both SDMB members in five years, by which time I expect more U.S. states will permit SSM and it will pass the ten-year mark in Canada, do you think you’ll be able then to point to any palpable effect in the Christian community that resulted? I assume from all your warnings that it will be significant and noticeable.
But that’s not the argument. The argument is that immoral behavior is being called moral behavior. If that immoral behavior is actually considered not to be immoral than the system of morality that considers it immoral has its basis called into question, and thus, harm is done.
Well by that token religious belief has no validity whatsoever.
He put it in capital letters, though. It must be true.
At last, progress! 
Fine, as long as insufficient and non-existant are distinguished as separate terms then you and I are in agreement.
I’d argue that eroding the legitimacy of one’s moral basis goes a little bit deeper than merely, ‘feeling bad’, but I recognize that you don’t agree and that’s a debate over a nuance that is well, not going to lead to anything productive here.
In fact, in the long run, the putative “religious doctrines” that had been used to oppose miscegenation and suffrage, and abolition for that matter, were repudiated or discarded, voluntarily, by the very religions in whose name they had been used. The very religious belief systems whose “harm” was predicted were actually improved, by their own judgment. Those who had held those beliefs were generally able to abandon them once they themselves had come to realize that they had actually been merely rationalizing bigotry.
The Fight Against Ignorance takes some funny turns at times, doesn’t it?
Well if you want to argue that, it’s certainly a legitimate position. I disagree with it, but if someone comes out swinging the anti-religion bat then at least there is some logical consistency. That sort of honest consistency is the main reason I don’t positively loathe Der Trihs as opposed to finding him mildly irritating.
I think that religions are responsible for a lot of good in this world, but it’s not a conversation that can be had with most people who are anti-religion for many reasons, but mainly because they find ways to dismiss intangibles.
Don’t we do this already? What about religious beliefs in female circumcision? What about religious beliefs in human sacrifice? What about religious beliefs that women are property and have no rights? Those beliefs are held up as examples of bad things.
Yes, but they are losing something that they had no right to in the first place (the codification of their religious belief in the law).
It’s only a lie if you think that your opinion on what is moral is objective fact. Both sides argue that objective morality agrees with them. I find it incredibly convenient how often moral objectivity favors the one invoking it.
Yes, we do, it’s just not usually Christian belief, at least in this country. Teaching that Christian belief is wrong and evil would mark a major shift in western society.
Of course we’ll always have Unitarians and Liberal Episcopalians for liberals to invoke as, ‘the good ones’.
Yes, the whole idea of ‘inalienable’ rights is a religious concept to begin with, one of the big ironies of this whole debate.
Your assumption here, which is simply false, is that a cultural way of life for a given society such as ours is unchangeable, immutable. Of course it is not. Cultures are constantly shifting and changing - even when a minority are opposed to such change.
You are also assuming that our entire society/culture deems SSM to be immoral, as opposed to a number of people within it. This is also false. You finally assume that SSM will be “taught” in schools, and that people who oppose it will be demonized. By this logic, we should stop teaching evolution in schools, because a sizeable minority do not believe it, and oppose it.
For the record, here in Canada, SSM is not “taught” in schools. It is not even a particular topic of conversation anywhere.
The trouble is, only the individual himself can judge how much harm is being inflicted. This isn’t something one can take to an objective judge and get a verdict on. One Christian might might it uncomfortable but will shrug it off, while another has firmly decided that the raining down of hellfire is imminent.
Literal erosion of mountains and machine parts is in fact measurable. What possible standard can one apply to measure the erosion of an individual moral basis, and need others get by with a lesser set of rights while the issue is sorted out?
What’s a “cultural way of life”, again? If it’s a religion, then you’re trying to force a religion on people via government, which is unconstitutional. If it’s simply a description of the current state of the aggregate popular opinion, then it quite literally cannot be “damaged” - it can be changed, but absent some sort of objective standard, calling change “damage” is fallacious scaremongering.
Not to mention that “the culture will be damaged” is a pretty frikking weak level of harm compared to “people will not be granted the right of marriage.”
It’s poppycock to say that “SSM will be taught in schools” - being married to a person of the same gender isn’t something you are taught. On rare occasions the existence of SSM will be mentioned in schools, usually in passing; to claim or imply that there will be an institutionalized effort to gayify or gaymarriageify children is a strawman and ridiculous besides.
And what do you suppose will be taught as being evil, by the way? Certainly hetero marriages won’t be demonized. And I’d lay good odds that religions will pretty much a pass on denying religious marriages to gays, the same way they pretty much get a pass when they ban the women from the clergy.
No, the only thing that will be demonized is when people for no rational reason went around trying to tyrannize and deny rights to a separate minority. And whatever bigotry may or may not have inspired this, that’ll be demonized as well.
In my opinion, if you want to prevent us from demonizing overt acts of tyrrany, hatred, and evil, then you are damaging the culture.
And if you don’t also object to the demonization of murder on the grounds that human sacrifice has been part of religions, you’re a hypocrite besides.
I’m not impressed by the bullshit tactic of claiming that nobody understands your case. What case you have presented, I, at least, understand just fine. You value your image of america as a religious theocracy above the rights of gay people. Tyranny of the majority. Oppression of the weak to maintain the status quo. This is the case you are making.
You are absolutely right that this is not value neutral either - either the tyrannically-inclined religious types will be miffed by having the world slightly less under their thumb, or an entire class of people will be stripped of their rights and treated as second-class citizens. This is far from value neutral.
And you’ll note that I’m not ignoring the concerns of the tyrannically-inclined religious types - I’m taking them into account. But that doesn’t mean they automatically win.
First we’ll note that this isn’t all the pro-SSM side is doing. They’re also backed by constitutional and equal rights arguments. So equating the two sides over the one shared aspect that they each demonize the other is disingenous at best.
And secondly, the Pro-SSM side is not saying that straight marriage is evil. They’re saying that oppressing other people are evil. Were the gays actually trying to do something that would cause material harm to straights, such as banning straight marriage or forcing straight people into gay marriages, then everyone would switch sides in a heartbeat.
And this is the crux of the problem also, one puts individual rights as paramount. It’s basically that we are becoming an atomized society and irrevocably moving away from traditional culture. That’s fine by me, I am already an atomized/globalized individual suspended in the colloid of the global cosmopolis.
Church attendance? Number of people who identify as Christian?
You better not be so quick to criticize objective morality - your argument for the existence of “cultural damage” utterly and completely depends on it.
The only difference being, in that case, you are the one invoking it.
Good luck making a causal link independent of other factors.
Uh, okay. :rolleyes: You know that traditional culture has always changed, right? Change isn’t new.
Abortion hasn’t reduced the number of Christians. Why would SSM? In fact, I would say that the number of Christians would go up as the prejudiced want to get involved.
Oh and if a particular Christian thinks their right to not be offended is anywhere near as important as the right of two people to wed, well that particular Christian is a fucking shitbag.