Good point. Somewhere I read a quote that said “The test of courage is when you’re in the minority, the test of virtue is when you’re in the majority”. Something like that. I can abide by those who lament that their views are going the way of slavery or segregation, but not those who claim its unamerican, unfair, and want to stop it with lies.
Who said anything about threads? You said that people just want to minimize you as an opponent and I’m saying that we don’t need to do anything, you’re minimalizing yourself with no help from us.
Now, I’m not the OP and it seems as though the OP and I disagree on the avenue of discussion somewhat but in general, when someone asks a question and another person answers, there’s a give and take where people are asked to expound further on the reasoning behind their answers and rebuttals. Making a contentious statement and then doing nothing but repeatedly posting that you’re not going to say anything else on the subject strikes me as inefficient, in poor taste and quickly becomes uninteresting.
I misread.
It is not contentious to answer a the OP when it is specifically geared towards antiSSM people in a very narrow point.
I’m sorry if you can’t particiapte in a thread talking about just one part of the SSM debate.
Okay. But absent any examples of actual demonstrable harm to society you’d care to offer (and “go Google it” doesn’t count) I’ll continue to believe in the accuracy of my assessment.
And what I’d actually love is for these discussions not to exist at all, which I’m confident will be the case in a generation or two. We just happen to live at the cusp of a societal change.
The act of answering is not usually contentious, no but your answer itself is and you should expect challenges to blithe assertions.
One reason I think people are uncomfortable with SSM: They’re uncomfortable with what (many) gay male couples do behind closed doors.
If an action is intrinsically good, then it’s a good thing no matter what bad things the persons committing it have also done. And if an act is intrinsically bad, then it’s a bad thing despite any admirable qualities possessed by its perpetrators. I think most people would agree with this, although obviously we disagree on which actions fall under which categories.
So I really question the propaganda value of touting the love and commitment and faithfulness of homosexual couples. I mean maybe such an approach works for converting some people, but it definitely doesn’t seem to be working for me. Love and commitment and faithfulness are certainly wonderful things, and perhaps their wonderfullness even excuses such couples from some moral responsibility for their undesirable acts. But their personal culpability is irrelevant to the fact that I can’t sanction a public wrong.
I think that they’re more worried about what they do in public.
Fair enough.
What, exactly, makes it a public wrong? That question is going completely unanswered in this thread.
And please don’t tell us to Google it. 
Oh, derp, derp! I guess you’re too smart for me. You get simple analogies and I don’t.
No, smart guy, I get your analogy; I do not get your logic. Like a lot of people, I fail to see the harm in two chicks getting married, but that wasn’t even my question. I’m pretty sure you have some religiosity clouding your opinion. I could be wrong, but I’m not going to do a search of your thousands of posts searching for clues to find out when you could just answer here like a normal person. Anyway, given your premise that they are both harmful and enjoyed by people, why are you okay with smoking being legal but not same sex marriage? I mean, surely you don’t want every harmful but enjoyable thing that there is to be outlawed, right? Clearly you don’t, so what separates some from others? More specifically, what separates *this *(SSM) from others? Is it Jesus? You can say so.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-marriage-plot-inside-this-years-epic-campaign-for-gay-equality/265865/"]The Atlantic has a (long) interesting article on how marriage won out in the last election cycle. They cite the main reason is a shift from intellectual arguments regarding equality and fairness and targeted more emotional reasonings where it isn’t about “gay marriage” but “marriage.” Also a better understanding of those opposed to gay marriage.
It appears that a majority of us intend to treat all humans equally despite you. No one who views all humans as equal needs to undergo a conversion, but since you mentioned it, just apply whatever algorithm you used to accept and support interracial marriage. Then you can stop wringing your hands over the happiness of people who won’t be available to date you.
Indeed. Homosexuals may do immoral things behind closed doors, but since that harms no one but themselves, I’m inclined to leave them alone. The government can’t regulate the minutiae of intimate relations. “Equal marriage rights” is another matter entirely, however. It crosses the line from asking passive acceptance to demanding active support. It’s no longer “I want to be able to live my life in peace without fear of arrest”, but “I want the government to affirm that my relationship is as valid as all others, and woe betide those who disagree”.
Well there isn’t really anything novel for me to say here; the traditional position is well-known, and speaks for itself. Rather than trying to argue past each other from mutually-incompatible starting points, I think it makes more sense for us to engage in more constructive dialog: How can we live together in peace and understanding, despite our different opinions? That’s why I liked the opening premiss of this thread - it wasn’t about arguing, but understanding.
Haha what is that supposed to mean? There are an awful lot of people in the world who aren’t available to date me, and I’m guessing most of them are heterosexual.
What the hell?
You ask for a persons opinion on something and when he gives an opinion different than yours you turn it into a 3 page pile on?
These are the kind of threads that are more detrimental to your cause than anything else. Why ask for an opinion if you don’t want to hear a dissenting view?
The man/woman has his mindset and his own thoughts. Any amount of name calling or berating is not gonna change it.
YMMV
We can’t. Sorry. On this issue, your “differing opinion” is that I should be treated like a second class citizen. There’s really no way to have that debate and stay respectful, because you’re starting from a position that is inherently insulting and dehumanizing towards your opposition.
I fail to see how what others do with those they love affects you in any way other than to put a dent in your dating pool.
Morality is a social concept which thankfully evolves with us and exists independently of the Bible. Elsewise slavery would be the norm, as would animal sacrifice, stoning, and other barbaric practices. There is nothing immoral about sex between consenting adults. It’s a natural inclination for all living creatures.
You mentioned conversion as if the default position of humans is to find error in homosexuality and that supporters must have been convinced to accept it. That isn’t true. Some of us have never given it a single thought, though some sheltered folks insulated by church or city life (homosexual behavior in animals is an unsurprising feature on farms, zoos, and the wild) may have needed some exposure to accept it.
Certain types of people seek opportunities to martyr themselves. I suspect the pilee is enjoying himself immensely.
I’m all for living together in peace and understanding. The paradox for me is that while I want peace and understanding for everyone, your version seems to want to exclude a significant segment of the population. How do you square that?
I didn’t intend for the thread to become a pile on- I was (and still am) genuinely curious about the opinions of the opposing view on the “emotional aspect”, so to speak, of gay marriage. I appreciate the input of those who have spoken up in the thread, even as I disagree with them.
Indeed. Interracial couples may do immoral things behind closed doors, but since that harms no one but themselves, I’m inclined to leave them alone. The government can’t regulate the minutiae of intimate relations. “Equal marriage rights” for interracial couples is another matter entirely, however. It crosses the line from asking passive acceptance to demanding active support. It’s no longer “I want to be able to live my life in peace without fear of arrest”, but “I want the government to affirm that my interracial relationship is as valid as all others, and woe betide those who disagree”.
Woe indeed.