I want to respond to a few more parts of your post, but have to run–I’ll add another reply later. But here, you’ve clearly not gotten my point (and I understand you refer to many people)—it’s simply not true that tolerance requires us not to evaluate an argument’s merits because that argument is religious. (although many people arguing against gay marriage take pains to argue they’re driven by family, or society–something other than religion).
I have already contended we should not reject arguments because they’re religious. I say so again here. Conversely, we should not accept arguments for solely that reason either. If we do what you suggest, we can’t distinguish a good religious argument from a good secular argument from a bad religious argument from “I don’t like peanuts”. That has nothing to do with tolerance–it has to do with whether we should consider arguments on their merits–especially when nobody is suggesting we forbid members of a religion from following their beliefs, but instead ask whether society has to cater to those beliefs, or if those beliefs justify imposing restrictions on others who don’t share them…
No, that’s the conclusion reached AFTER hearing “the other side”, after, in fact, begging to hear something more. I’ve tried to make that point to you several times, and it’s about time you paid attention.
I wasn’t suggesting this. I was suggesting that people want to both be considered tolerant while at the same time demonizing all of Christianity. Sometimes when you oppose something you need to stand up and be intolerant of it. Jumping through hoops regarding tolerance of intolerance is silly. If you are intolerant of Christianity just be straight up honest about it like jayjay.
I disagree. I am just saying stand up for your convictions and don’t waste peoples time with irrelevant blather about tolerance and bigotry as was done early on in this thread. As I said above Tolerance in and of itself is not a value. There are plenty of things we do and don’t tolerate, arguing for ‘tolerance’ is buzzword reality devoid of substance, as is the converse of arguing about bigotry. Both words have been debased by overuse IMO.
Built into Christianity is the idea that Christian morality is not consonant with world life. That’s a very interesting aspect of the argument that provides a much sounder argument than say, genetics, or tolerance. There are plenty of genetic predispositions that we don’t think people should be tolerant of. So after we say homosexuality is genetic we are back where we started, asking what we believe its place in society should be. I have a congenital heart condition, but I don’t view it as a positive aspect of my identity. Why is homosexuality a GOOD part of identity?
The Constitution is not an “idealistic preconception”, it’s the supreme law of the land. It doesn’t matter what I or anybody else individually thinks should work, it’s what we collectively as a nation have identified as our highest ideals and codified as our supreme law. Equal protection and separation of church and state are among them. If you don’t like those things, you can try to change them, but you need an argument first. As I told you already, you really need to go learn what that old piece of paper is all about.
And nowhere will you find him saying that any particular sect’s teachings, or even mere traditions, even the admirable ones (which homophobia is not), need to be respected above the rights defined in the Constitution.
And you know that is not what “people” are saying at all. If so, you are far guiltier of this “oversimplification” problem you decry than anyone else.
Try this analogy, based on your own words: There are people who want to be considered tolerant while at the same time demonizing homosexuals.
Get it now?
The ones that hurt others, yes. But the reason isn’t that they’re genetic, it’s their effects. So how does someone else’s homosexuality affect you? On what basis do you decide what genetic predispositions you will be tolerant of?
Interesting that you compare homosexuality to a defect, huh?
The Constitution is not “theory”, it is the supreme law of the land. As I said.
*Please *go learn about it, will you? :dubious:
We can all read:
*Please *try actually thinking about and answering some of the questions put to you here, instead of yet again simply retorting with this “No, YOU’RE the bigots!” stuff. You’re not helping anyone at all with that.
Why? Do we ask the same question of other inborn conditions? Shall we discuss the place of disabled people in society? Shall we discuss the place of short people, fat people, people with uncooperative hair, ugly people?
Why would you take your heart condition into account when determining your value as a human being? Your heart condition may make your life shorter than it would otherwise be, or it might make it more difficult or less safe for you to pursue certain activities. But does it make your life worth less than someone else’s life? Should we deny someone like you the right to marry the person you love because you might die too soon, or because you require expensive treatment, or because you might place undue burdens on your spouse, or because sick people just can’t enter into the same kinds of long-term commitments as healthy people?
Why is homosexuality a BAD part of identity? Why is heterosexuality a GOOD part of identity? Why, outside of a specific religious worldview, is sexual orientation part of our evalution of a person’s overall value?
Shall we establish a scale of human characteristics, weighted for goodness/badness? We can decide who gets to enjoy the full benefit of society based on their score.
You really are dirt stupid aren’t you? You don’t understand the difference between constitutional theory and it’s application? I didn’t say the constitution was just theory, I said your interpretation of how it should be handled was. God, even when I spell it out for you, you’re too dumb to get it.
You clearly have not been reading anything I’ve been writing. Because that’s not what I’ve been doing at all. It’s amazing that Whorfin and I can discuss this just fine, but for you it’s just impossible.
Yes, we should continue to question everything. It has served us well thus far. Taboos are half of superstition.
No, I didn’t argue that. That doesn’t even resemble what I said. What I was saying is that the ‘it’s genetic’ argument doesn’t hold water because lots of things are genetic but we don’t uphold them as a societal good.
I didn’t say homosexuality was a BAD part of identity. Heterosexuality is a no-brainer though, it’s an unmitigated good because it propagates the species. I don’t think that even WITHIN the specific religious worldview that sexual orientation is part of the evaluation of a person’s overall value, as that worldview considers everyone to be a sinner. The question isn’t about valuing individuals but about valuing certain behaviors.
Homosexuals HAVE the full benefit of society as it exists now. The pro-gay marriage faction is suggesting an expanded set of rights that currently do not exist. It is looking to expand the definition of marriage. As marriage traditionally was based around procreation, it is a bit of a revolutionary change in how we view the most fundamental of human interactions. The problem here is that the pro-gay marriage faction is dismissive of this as though the change is no big deal, when it is. As I’ve said I support the change, but I don’t pretend that it’s not a major shift in human civilization.
I still haven’t seen a convincing argument for why this [gay marriage] is a Big Fucking Deal. How does it affect you one whit?
I’ll tell you what a “revolutionary change” is. A revolutionary change is the proletariat overthrowing the government. A revolutionary change is a politician establishing an autocractic state. Allowing two people to be recognized for engaging in a benevolent relationship in the same way that all heterosexual couples can is most assuredly not a revolutionary change. Get fucking real.
Marriage was an institution that established the family structure as the basic unit upon which society was founded. This change in the view of marriage is a serious one.
Changing the fundamental way in which we order society is a big deal. Changing it so that the marriage relationship is about sex and not about procreation is a big deal. Something being a big deal isn’t about YOUR opinion of it. If it wasn’t a ‘big deal’ it wouldn’t be controversial. If you want to be overly simplistic about it that’s your prerogative, but it’s an opinion that shows a startling historical illiteracy. But don’t worry, you have lots of company in that regard.
Bwah? So gays only want to marry so that they can have butt s3x?? So much for compassionate love.
Allow me to address your premise: “Marriage was an institution that established the family structure as the basic unit upon which society was founded.”
Frankly, I don’t buy that. People are more than capable of a committed relationship without the title of “marriage.” I think society was founded upon agriculture, domestication, and increasing division of labor.
Even supposing that your premise were true, why should it never change? People used to have to harvest their own grain and bake their own bread. That shouldn’t keep me from ordering Domino’s. Somehow other countries have legalized same-sex marriage and their society didn’t collapse. If legalizing same-sex marriage were such a world-shaking event placing all of society in mortal jeopardy, I would expect it to have failed at every turn. Reality begs to differ.
Right, and heteros only want to get married so they can dutifully pop out workers for the state. :rolleyes: So much for compassionate love!
How revisionist. Agriculture, domestication, the increasing division of labor and the family unit are not mutually exclusive.
Are you actually reading what you’re responding to because I am getting bored of repeating myself. I guess I should just save a note with a post and keep linking it for those too lazy to actually pay attention to the discussion.
I said it was revolutionary not cataclysmic. And you can’t tell what the impact on demographics will be for at least 50-100 years, so the fact is we don’t KNOW what it will do to society.
I didn’t mean to suggest that. My point was that gays and straights can (and do) form empathic, romantic bonds, and if one group is allowed to marry then the other should be , too.
True. But why can’t families where the parents are both the same gender be included in your definition of “family?”
It’s entirely possible I may have missed something that you intended to feature prominently in your posts. This thread is getting close to 15 pages. If I have missed something serious, I have no problem taking a step back and reading what you wrote more carefully.
Yes, there is a difference between those words. Yes, my previous posts have been somewhat hyperbolic. However, you say “revolutionary” but keep finishing your posts by saying things like, “we don’t know what it will do to society.” Or, “it fundamentally changes human interaction.” That seems equally histrionic. We do know what will happen. We can look at several other countries that have legalized. Why should there be any impact at all 100 years later from something as innocuous as gay marriage? I’m sure your answer will be something to the effect of, “It’s not innocuous! It’s different!”
I agree, but Romantic bonds were not the root of the family structure necessarily. I believe that’s a relatively modern convention.
They can be, but it’s a significant change in the social order.
I support gay marriage and gay adoption both. Post 360 outlines my position on it.
We have to wait 100 years because it’s impact will ripple through generationally. We cannot know what the impact demographically will be in the short-term, it’s just impossible, so no, we cannot look at the impact on countries that legalized it within the last ten years or so. We need to see what it’s like when a generation that views homosexual marriage as fully normalized has children what it’s impact on demographics will be. The traditional concern is largely influenced by demographics. The traditionalists believe that our culture is moving into a dangerous ‘anti-breeding’ trend that will have serious consequences for the future of our culture. The numbers support this because every country with legal SSM has a below replacement birthrate.
As usual, you pick and choose what you moderate. IE, he calls me a liar for 15 pages, not a peep. Unless that liar rule was revoked. But as usual, you pick and choose. It’s ok though, I saw it coming. But as it’s already been said I don’t need to say it again.
So have we finally come to the consensus that aside from histrionic whining that there is no argument against SSM? I don’t care what your bullshit Babylonian storm god told you. It is irrelevant. What is the rational argument?
I’ve been waiting this entire thread for *one *rational argument aside from some bullshit appeal to piety.