Gay marriage

[donner]

There are more than a few gay people who are using this as a wedge that will be progressively (pardon the pun) driven home to punish those who oppose homosexuality. These are not your nice gay coworkers and relatives. There is a militant gay faction. It is already illegal in Canada to say that homosexuality is a sin. You need to consider the militant gay endgame. Are there just a few of them who have no real power or are there enough of them to continue driving in the wedge by means of the legal system?

One could also ask, "Why would you trust someone to do a good job baking your wedding cake who didn't want to support and celebrate your marriage?"

There are radical factions of almost every group (religious, gay rights, environmentalist, political, etc). While they might actively push their agenda, that does not make them right. And it certainly does not mean you limit the rights of the larger group because you fear the subset.

Again, we must start from a position of equal protections for all and deal with these issues as they arise.

 

[Dale00]

There are radical factions of almost every group (religious, gay rights, environmentalist, political, etc). While they might actively push their agenda, that does not make them right. And it certainly does not mean you limit the rights of the larger group because you fear the subset.

Again, we must start from a position of equal protections for all and deal with these issues as they arise.

You see this issue as one of civil rights.

I see gay marriage as the logical result of a long-term, multi-generational decline in morality. "If I can do whatever I want, then who am I to deny gays the right to marriage."

How can we bridge the gap between these two disparate points of view?

 

[donner]

You see this issue as one of civil rights.

I see gay marriage as the logical result of a long-term, multi-generational decline in morality. "If I can do whatever I want, then who am I to deny gays the right to marriage."

How can we bridge the gap between these two disparate points of view?

Personally i'd say that the 'long-term' decline is a lack of historical understanding, but i wont argue the morality of it because i don't think either of us will convince the other and i'm not sure that the morality should influence the legal aspect of it. I would just say that i don't see denying two people who love each other the right to marry as being a morally good position. Nor denying two free people the right to associate with whomever they choose (and the legal rights and privileges that accompany that association as codified by law currently).

And morality changes through time. Always has, always will. The morals of the founders are not the same as those that came before or after them. It was once considered moral to burn witches, now it is not.

But in looking at the constitutional protections provided, none rely on the morality of the recipient. Morality plays little to no role in what you can legally say, guns you can legally own, the amount of protections you enjoy from searches or anything else.

Again, we can discuss the fallout from decisions like this all we want, but we must begin from a position that everyone should be protected equally.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I see gay marriage as the logical result of a long-term, multi-generational decline in morality. "If I can do whatever I want, then who am I to deny gays the right to marriage."

Who are any of us to judge the morality of others or to punish/exclude those people from enjoying life? Some of us see gay marriage as a righting the wrongs of the older generations.

 

[JD8]

You see this issue as one of civil rights.

I see gay marriage as the logical result of a long-term, multi-generational decline in morality. "If I can do whatever I want, then who am I to deny gays the right to marriage."

How can we bridge the gap between these two disparate points of view?

Love thy neighbor eh?

 

[Dale00]

Personally i'd say that the 'long-term' decline is a lack of historical understanding, but i wont argue the morality of it because i don't think either of us will convince the other and i'm not sure that the morality should influence the legal aspect of it. I would just say that i don't see denying two people who love each other the right to marry as being a morally good position. Nor denying two free people the right to associate with whomever they choose (and the legal rights and privileges that accompany that association as codified by law currently).

Why only two?
Why only adults?
Why only humans?
I'm not trying to be over the top, but rather to point out that without an external standard for morality, you have no morality. I believe that everyone in our culture has benefited greatly from judeo-christian morality regardless of their personal beliefs. Most of us are just blind to this fact.

And morality changes through time. Always has, always will. The morals of the founders are not the same as those that came before or after them. It was once considered moral to burn witches, now it is not.

Consider Nazi Germany. They decided it was ok to murder certain groups. Who are we to say that they were wrong? Consider the radical environmentalist point of view that says humans are a blight on the planet and need to die out. Who are we to say that they are wrong?
Again, not trying to be obnoxious but to point out the need for an external standard of morality.

But in looking at the constitutional protections provided, none rely on the morality of the recipient. Morality plays little to no role in what you can legally say, guns you can legally own, the amount of protections you enjoy from searches or anything else.

Again, we can discuss the fallout from decisions like this all we want, but we must begin from a position that everyone should be protected equally.

Is man the measure of all things or is God? Where do constitutional protections originate - in man's intellect? or are they from God?

 

[JD8]

Considering Nazi Germany was a nation full of christians........ I'll pass on the request for a perceived need of external morals. They, like many here are hypocrites.

 

[donner]

Why only two?
Why only adults?
Why only humans?
I'm not trying to be over the top, but rather to point out that without an external standard for morality, you have no morality. I believe that everyone in our culture has benefited greatly from judeo-christian morality regardless of their personal beliefs. Most of us are just blind to this fact.

Nothing stops three adults from living together currently.

Children and animals are easy to answer since either can legally give consent. And child marriage was common for many years. If we're discussing 'external standards' then there are many things that are now considered immoral that were once common in societies that were far more 'Christian' than ours.

Consider Nazi Germany. They decided it was ok to murder certain groups. Who are we to say that they were wrong? Consider the radical environmentalist point of view that says humans are a blight on the planet and need to die out. Who are we to say that they are wrong?
Again, not trying to be obnoxious but to point out the need for an external standard of morality.

We don't need external standards to discuss why murder is bad for society.

Why is your 'external standard' the right one? Which of the many different judeo-christian standards should we follow? Since not all christian faiths say gay marriage is wrong, why is yours the correct one?

You seem to be looking for absolutes when there are none. Many say vengeance belongs to God alone, and that murder is bad, yet support the death penalty. There is enough hypocrisy to go around.

Is man the measure of all things or is God? Where do constitutional protections originate - in man's intellect? or are they from God?

Which God? Why is your God the right one to follow? Why is man's interpretation of God's word the right one? Religion has changed over time, morals have changed, society has changed.

We could go on and on and on, but the fact remains that the Constitution does not require faith nor God for protection. If God made man to be free, why should we support the government restricting the gift that God gave all of us? Again, this could go on forever.

The fact is that no one has put forth a logical, legal, reason why gays should not be allowed to marry that does not rely on religion for support.

But religious arguments like this always bring me back to the story of the man and the rising flood waters.

God Will Save Me

A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately.

A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”

The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”

As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.”

The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”

The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop.

A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, "Grab my hand and I will pull you up!" But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”

Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.

When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”

And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”

 

[Lurker66]

How can we bridge the gap between these two disparate points of view?

Good question. Easy answer. Be nice, mind your own business and try really hard to be a good person. It's really not that hard and it's really that easy.

 

[Dale00]

Good question. Easy answer. Be nice, mind your own business and try really hard to be a good person. It's really not that hard and it's really that easy.

Short answers are usually the best answers. Each person makes up his own mind and is seldom swayed by force of argument.