Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 208
  1. #1
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    I'm not reading through 567 replies dating back from 2005 on the gay marriage thread. If any topic needed a fresh start...

    Gay marriage should be allowed. There is no tenable reason not to allow it and those against it have no legitimate justification beyond irrational dislike of gays.

    The usual responses in favor of banning gay marriage are easily demolished.

    It threatens the institution of marriage.
    This has to be, without a doubt, the most infuriating objection of them all. The institution of marriage has been, for CENTURIES, little more than a business arrangement. Women were the property of their father until married off. Said marriages were usually arranged for exchange or joining of property (depending on the era). The idea that people should marry because they're in love is a very new concept. Yet even though marriage has (mostly) ceased to be a contract... even though it's about love... anti-gays seek to ban gay marriage.

    Oh... and up until as recently as 100 years ago, it was legal (and all to shockingly common) for for men in their 20's or older to marry girls in their mid or early teens.

    Finally, I have never... EVER... heard a cogent argument explaining how allowing gays to marry would have any detriment to "the institution of marriage". Not once. Allowing gays to marry doesn't cheapen the love & devotion a straight couple has for each other. "I love you,sweetie, but I love you a little less for every gay couple that gets married..." It's nonsense. If you feel that your marriage doesn't mean as much because gay people are allowed to marry, then you're a bigot. Period. Marriage is like a club and if you feel that club is brought low by allowing people different from you membership... well... I don't see how that's any different from wanting to keep blacks out of a country club.

    It's unnatural.
    This is a pathetic argument. Wearing glasses in unnatural. Taking medication is unnatural. Using the internet is unnatural. We have nothing against things that are unnatural. Some people just choose to hide their bigotry behind this word.

    It will lead to people marrying their dogs / garbage cans / children /etc.
    This is the hallmark of the slippery slope fallacy. Worse, it's demeaning to gays. They (gays seeking marriage) are people who love each other and who are seeking equality. They're not looking to marry inanimate objects, minors, or animals. They're consenting adults.

    Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it might cause some harm later.
    What a terrible and needlessly discriminatory argument this is? As though something possibly going wrong in the future is a reason to deny rights today? What exactly do you think would go wrong? You know... aside from *gasp* people thinking it's okay to be gay.

    Marriage isn't a right that gays deserve.
    Pure bigotry.

    Gays have the right to marry people of the opposite gender just like everyone else.
    This horrible argument seeks to make human beings interchangeable. They aren't.

    Consenting adults should have the right to marry other consenting adults. Period.

    There isn't a tenable counter argument. Certainly not one that cannot be easily traced back to irrational bigotry.

    Oh, and just in case any of you were planning on offering the same tired argument about children doing better with straight couples:


  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    I think since the religious claim 'right' over the word 'marriage' as something that can only be done under the auspices of their deity, you might want to modify the OP to 'civil union'.

    I'd also like to add

    My religion calls homosexuality a sin
    Your deity does not really exist - stop hiding behind your religion. Your thinking is based on an outdated non-fact-based morality and is therefore morally invalid, as well as provably wrong.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    It will lead to people marrying their dogs / garbage cans / children /etc.
    This is the hallmark of the slippery slope fallacy. Worse, it's demeaning to gays. They (gays seeking marriage) are people who love each other and who are seeking equality. They're not looking to marry inanimate objects, minors, or animals. They're consenting adults.
    There is currently a lawsuit in Utah arguing for the right to have "sister wives" based on same-sex marriage decisions. Saying "But there's a really good intent behind same-sex marriage laws" doesn't actually show that there isn't a slippery slope. That's not a counter-argument.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    I
    It will lead to people marrying their dogs / garbage cans / children /etc.
    This is the hallmark of the slippery slope fallacy. Worse, it's demeaning to gays. They (gays seeking marriage) are people who love each other and who are seeking equality. They're not looking to marry inanimate objects, minors, or animals. They're consenting adults.
    The problem here is of course...that it is a legitimate slope. Where do we draw the line exactly, and why be so arbitrary about it since it is no longer between a man and woman?
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; July 25th, 2011 at 12:34 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rotorua NZ
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The problem here is of course...that it is a legitimate slope. Where do we draw the line exactly, and why be so arbitrary about it since it is no longer between a man and woman?
    The thing is, the line HAS been changed before, there was a time when it prohibited interracial marriage.

    Was that going down a slippery slope as well? I really can't see how that differs from two consenting adults wishing to formalise their relationship here.
    Politics and the fate of mankind are formed by men without ideals and without greatness. Those who have greatness within them do not go in for politics- Albert Camus

    I say violence is necessary, it is about as American as cherry pie- Rap Brown

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
    The thing is, the line HAS been changed before, there was a time when it prohibited interracial marriage.

    Was that going down a slippery slope as well? I really can't see how that differs from two consenting adults wishing to formalise their relationship here.
    There IS a difference: When marriage is defined as being a 'full relationship' between man and woman, for the purpose of socially/divinely sanctioned procreation and enrichment of their mutual relationship - then to prohibit such a union on racial grounds is adding another dimension of bias to the original definition.

    In the case of prohibiting same sex marriage, well this is already implicit within the original terms and definition of what constitues a marriage. In order to permit same sex marriage there requires a fundamental demolishing and reconstruction of the original terms and definition of marriage. IMHO, far more 'logical'/rational to have a 'civil contract/union' for same sex situations giving most of the civil protections and obligations.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  7. #7
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    There is currently a lawsuit in Utah arguing for the right to have "sister wives" based on same-sex marriage decisions. Saying "But there's a really good intent behind same-sex marriage laws" doesn't actually show that there isn't a slippery slope. That's not a counter-argument.
    There are Christians in Utah with multiple wives. I could care less about Utah.

    ---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The problem here is of course...that it is a legitimate slope.
    Because you say it's a "legitimate slope"? You need to support this or retract the statement. Otherwise anyone invoking the slippery slope fallacy can offer "oh, but it's a legitimate slope" and negate the fallacy. And we both know that doesn't work. Marriage is between consenting adults. Gay marriage does not seek to change that. What is your evidence to suggest marriage in the future will cease to be between consenting adults?

    ---------- Post added at 08:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    In order to permit same sex marriage there requires a fundamental demolishing and reconstruction of the original terms and definition of marriage.
    That doesn't make any sense. A "fundamental demolishing and reconstruction of the original terms" would be like taking a concept and completely altering it's meaning so that it's unrecognizable. An example would be something I saw the comedian Ralphie May do. He wants to kill the word n***er by coming out with a line of cookies that are delicious... so that instead of a racially insulting term, it becomes something that everyone loves... so that you could someday hear rednecks say "Have you tried these n***ers? They're DELICIOUS. I love these n***ers. I can't get enough of them. How did I ever live my life without n***ers."

    That's not what's happening for marriage. It's still people who love each other devoting themselves to one another. If you think changing the gender of one person radically changes the meaning, then I think your opinion may be rooted (no offense) in bigotry.
    Last edited by Zhavric; July 25th, 2011 at 06:04 AM.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    @Zhvaric:

    Told you :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    IMHO, far more 'logical'/rational to have a 'civil contract/union' for same sex situations giving most of the civil protections and obligations.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The problem here is of course...that it is a legitimate slope. Where do we draw the line exactly, and why be so arbitrary about it since it is no longer between a man and woman?
    The line should be drawn when the legally recognised covenant is forced, arranged or coerced where one or both parties do not have a say in the covenant. The question is not whether it is arbitrary or not. The stance against gay marriage is one that spawned as a result of the tyranny of the majority, where the majority do not agree that gay marriage should be legalised. Marriage is an issue of personal choice and the freedom of each individual to choose how they should be married and who they should be married to. It is an intimate decision between two parties and it should remain that way.

    On the issue of polygamy or polygyny, nothing changes. As long as it is not a forced, arranged or coerced marriage (i.e. both parties are consenting parties), then there is no reason at all why there should be any argument against the personal choices of the parties involved.
    "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
    Christopher Hitchens

    "Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that's where it should stay."
    Christopher Hitchens

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think since the religious claim 'right' over the word 'marriage' as something that can only be done under the auspices of their deity, you might want to modify the OP to 'civil union'.
    No need. There is nothing actually preventing gays from having a religious marriage ceremony if they choose to.

    Sure, they are not likely to have a Catholic marriage ceremony but there are more liberal churches that will marry gay couples.

    ---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    There is currently a lawsuit in Utah arguing for the right to have "sister wives" based on same-sex marriage decisions. Saying "But there's a really good intent behind same-sex marriage laws" doesn't actually show that there isn't a slippery slope. That's not a counter-argument.
    If there is no valid reason to ban polygamous marriage, then gay marriage leading to polygamous marriage (if it does, that is. A lawsuit asking for legalized polygamy is not the same as actually getting it) isn't a problem.

    And if there is a valid reason to ban polygamous marriage, then it will be banned regardless of the status of gay marriage.

    ---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The problem here is of course...that it is a legitimate slope. Where do we draw the line exactly, and why be so arbitrary about it since it is no longer between a man and woman?
    We draw the line where there is no valid reason to deny those who want to marry the right to marry. Slippery slope arguments are inherently flawed.

    If there is no valid reason to ban, say, polygamous marriage, then we should legalized that as well and therefore gay marriage leading to that is not a reason to ban gay marriage.

    If there is a valid reason to ban polygamous marriage, then legalizing gay marriage should not lead to legalizing it.

    As far as I can tell, the line is "consenting adults". People fall in love and have long-term (or permanent) relationships which often (but not always) results in raising children and society tends to give these relationships special recognition. I see no valid reason to draw the line based on the races of the people, the relative gender of the people, or even the number of the people (I really can't think of a valid reason to ban polygamy). So the line is "consenting adults". No children, no animals, and no inanimate objects for none of them can consent to marriage.
    Last edited by mican333; July 25th, 2011 at 07:13 AM.

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No need. There is nothing actually preventing gays from having a religious marriage ceremony if they choose to.

    Sure, they are not likely to have a Catholic marriage ceremony but there are more liberal churches that will marry gay couples.
    I understand the global struggle on this and other socially progressive issues (such as ordaining female priests) but that's a failing of religion in general. What is one supposed to do if one is a gay Catholic? Leave the religion and find another way to get to the same supposed God's blessing? And would one then be able to raise one's children Catholic even though one has been ex-communicated? And don't blame the just Catholics, I'm sure a majority of the Christian churches would deny such a service and point to the others as bad Christians.

    That said, arguing over it just gets in the way of getting people together. We didn't promise we wouldn't use the word afterwards ;-); just for a little while you understand, until all the systems have been changed over, so long as there is someone to fund it.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    There IS a difference: When marriage is defined as being a 'full relationship' between man and woman, for the purpose of socially/divinely sanctioned procreation and enrichment of their mutual relationship - then to prohibit such a union on racial grounds is adding another dimension of bias to the original definition.
    Which likewise served a societal purpose - to prevent the races from mixing. I agree that that is not a valid reason to restrict marriage from people, but then the fact that gays will likely not procreate (there is artificial insemination and adoption, which straight married couples also use) is not a valid reason to restrict marriage from them. We do not ban straight couples who will not procreate (such as very old couples) from marriage and we likely equally value couples who are raising children that are not their biological children (adoptions, from other relationships, guardianships, etc). So there is no valid societal reason to ban gays from marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    In order to permit same sex marriage there requires a fundamental demolishing and reconstruction of the original terms and definition of marriage.
    Support, please. I do not see how my marriage will be changed one iota. I keep hearing this kind of language but no one ever says exactly what will be "demolished" in a way that will effect any currently straight marriage or future straight marriages. Seriously, tell me how my current marriage or the future marriages of my children will be "demolished" or in any way altered from what it is/will be.


    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    There IS a difference: When marriage is defined as being a 'full relationship' between man and woman, for the purpose of socially/divinely sanctioned procreation and enrichment of their mutual relationship - then to prohibit such a union on racial grounds is adding another dimension of bias to the original definition.
    Which likewise served a societal purpose - to prevent the races from mixing. I agree that that is not a valid reason to restrict marriage from people, but then the fact that gays will likely not procreate (there is artificial insemination and adoption, which straight married couples also use) is not a valid reason to restrict marriage from them. We do not ban straight couples who will not procreate (such as very old couples) from marriage and we likely equally value couples who are raising children that are not their biological children (adoptions, from other relationships, guardianships, etc). So there is no valid societal reason to ban gays from marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    IMHO, far more 'logical'/rational to have a 'civil contract/union' for same sex situations giving most of the civil protections and obligations.
    Then we should do the same for straights as well. As the SCOTUS ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education, separate is not equal.

    ---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I understand the global struggle on this and other socially progressive issues (such as ordaining female priests) but that's a failing of religion in general. What is one supposed to do if one is a gay Catholic? Leave the religion and find another way to get to the same supposed God's blessing? And would one then be able to raise one's children Catholic even though one has been ex-communicated? And don't blame the just Catholics, I'm sure a majority of the Christian churches would deny such a service and point to the others as bad Christians.

    That said, arguing over it just gets in the way of getting people together. We didn't promise we wouldn't use the word afterwards ;-); just for a little while you understand, until all the systems have been changed over, so long as there is someone to fund it.
    But the debate is what the government should do as far as recognizing gay marriage and there is no valid reason to not recognize gay marriage.

    What the churches do or don't do is another matter. The Catholic Church can refrain from performing gay marriage until the end of time if it so chooses. The government cannot, and should not, force a church to change its doctrine about anything, including same-sex marriage. And likewise the church cannot force the government to not grant gays equality that they clearly deserve under the constitution.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the debate is what the government should do as far as recognizing gay marriage and there is no valid reason to not recognize gay marriage.

    What the churches do or don't do is another matter. The Catholic Church can refrain from performing gay marriage until the end of time if it so chooses. The government cannot, and should not, force a church to change its doctrine about anything, including same-sex marriage. And likewise the church cannot force the government to not grant gays equality that they clearly deserve under the constitution.
    Sure, but calling it "marriage" rather than a "civil union" is the problem I'm trying to raise. Hence F&N's "divinely sanctioned .. relationship" needs to be responded to.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but calling it "marriage" rather than a "civil union" is the problem I'm trying to raise. Hence F&N's "divinely sanctioned .. relationship" needs to be responded to.
    But there's nothing stopping gays from having a religious marriage ceremony. Some churches will marry gays so there is absolutely no reason for the government to hold the position that gays cannot be married, either civilly or religiously.

    And for that matter, heterosexual atheists regularly have non-religious marriages and yet the government considers them "married" so the "divinely sanctioned" aspect is not necessary for government-recognized marriage.

    And if we want to divorce the civil from the religious in government-recognized marriage, then ALL government-recognized unions, gay and straights, should be called "civil unions". And if a couple want to have the religious ceremony of marriage, they can do that separately so they'd have both a religious marriage (which has nothing to do with the government) and a civil union (which grants them whatever benefits and recognitions that the government offers committed couples). And again, there is nothing stopping a gay couple from having both for they can have a religious marriage.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Gay marriage should be allowed. There is no tenable reason not to allow it and those against it have no legitimate justification beyond irrational dislike of gays.
    How do you know we dislike gays? Can you read our minds?

    Permitting same sex marriage is actually harmful to gays because it is encourages them to violate God's laws and bring on themselves the punishment for their violation.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ays?highlight=

    I know that you probably don't think this is a real threat but your belief or unbelief doesn't affect the reality.

    It's unnatural.
    This is a pathetic argument. Wearing glasses in unnatural. Taking medication is unnatural. Using the internet is unnatural. We have nothing against things that are unnatural. Some people just choose to hide their bigotry behind this word.
    What standards do you use to determine what is natural or unnatural?

    Wearing glasses and taking medications are sometimes necessary to correct physical diabilities or illnesses. How does this compare with same sex marriage?

    One aspect of marriage is sexual intercourse and the anatomical differences between men and women show that the natural practice of sex is between a man and a woman.

    Marriage isn't a right that gays deserve.
    Pure bigotry.
    Is marriage a right for anyone?

    There are Christians in Utah with multiple wives. I could care less about Utah.
    The people in Utah who have multiple wives are Mormons, not Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
    The thing is, the line HAS been changed before, there was a time when it prohibited interracial marriage.
    The prohibition of interracial marriage is something that was imposed by people. The connection between marriage and sexual activity means that marriage by it very nature should be between a man and a woman. Legalizing same sex marriage isn't about extending rights to gays but about changing the definition of what constitutes marriage.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    There are Christians in Utah with multiple wives. I could care less about Utah.
    Oh, you could care less about the actual counter-example that proves your argument wrong? I thought Christians were supposed to be the ones that ignored evidence right in front of them that contradicts their religious beliefs...
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  17. #17
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    How do you know we dislike gays? Can you read our minds?
    I can read your book and listen to what a lot of Christians have to say about gays. Furthermore, there isn't any other legitimate reason to stand against gay marriage, as I've demonstrated.

    Permitting same sex marriage is actually harmful to gays because it is encourages them to violate God's laws and bring on themselves the punishment for their violation.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ays?highlight=

    I know that you probably don't think this is a real threat but your belief or unbelief doesn't affect the reality.
    That's a religious issue and we live in a country without a state religion. Every man woman and child (regardless of sexual orientation) is given freedom to worship as they see fit. So invoking the rules of your religion as an argument is one of the most un-American arguments you could put forth. This is honestly the sort of reasoning I would expect to see from places like Iran.

    What standards do you use to determine what is natural or unnatural?
    Not requiring human technology to occur. Anything that does not occur as the result of a natural process is unnatural. Seeing is natural. Seeing through glasses is not natural because eyeglasses don't just happen. They don't grow from trees.

    One aspect of marriage is sexual intercourse and the anatomical differences between men and women show that the natural practice of sex is between a man and a woman.
    This is a non-issue. We do not invoke what's natural anywhere else in our society. We don't say, for example, "well, people have legs to naturally transport them around so bicycles are unnatural / bad / should be banned". We ban what's harmful, not what's unnatural. And there is, by definition, no intrinsic harm between consenting adults.

    Is marriage a right for anyone?
    It has to be all or nothing. You can't say that it's a right for some and NOT a right for others without a legitimate reason. That's how our society works. Consider for a moment driving. It's acceptable to discriminate against blind people where driving is concerned. It's unlawful for the blind to drive because without sight they're most likely going to kill themselves, others, cause property damage, etc. What harm does gay marriage cause? None. The only thing it harms is the sensibility of bigots.

    The prohibition of interracial marriage is something that was imposed by people. The connection between marriage and sexual activity means that marriage by it very nature should be between a man and a woman.
    Then by your definition, we should see laws that prohibit marriage between individuals who cannot engage in sex. For example, according to what you've stated, a soldier who's lost his genitals should be banned from marrying because he cannot engage in sex. If he were to marry, his marriage would necessitate the "re-defining marriage" (whatever that means). Right?

    Legalizing same sex marriage isn't about extending rights to gays but about changing the definition of what constitutes marriage.
    Ridiculous for several reasons:

    1) So bloody what? So we have to redefine what marriage is. So what? Where's the harm in that? I've yet to see where anyone has offered an argument to make sense of this. "Oh no! We're going to have to change law books! TERRIBLE! Make it so gays can't marry to preserve the wordings in our law books." Gays marrying neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. As I stated before, the only thing injured by redefining marriage is the sensibilities of bigots.

    2) It doesn't change the definition of marriage in any unreasonable way. It's still between cosenting adults. Not animals or inanimate objects or minors or any of the other silly slippery slope allegations that bigoted people make.

    3) It is absolutely about extending rights. Saying to someone, "You are banned from marrying the consenting adult that you love" is denying a right. Period. If others enjoy it and a minority can't, there has to be a reason beyond the bigotry of the majority.

    ---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Oh, you could care less about the actual counter-example that proves your argument wrong?
    No. I could care less about the Christians (because argue all you want, Mormons believe in Christ) who have re-defined the definition of marriage to extend to multiple consenting adults. I don't need your assistance to sink your argument, Clive

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    No. I could care less about the Christians (because argue all you want, Mormons believe in Christ) who have re-defined the definition of marriage to extend to multiple consenting adults. I don't need your assistance to sink your argument, Clive
    The point is that people are relying on the legal reasoning behind legalizing same-sex marriage in order to justify having multiple wives. This contradicts your claim that the legal justifications for same-sex marriage won't be a slippery slope to allowing other kinds of marriages.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Zhav, do you think it's bigoted to disallow polygamous unions?
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no tenable stance against gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    The point is that people are relying on the legal reasoning behind legalizing same-sex marriage in order to justify having multiple wives. This contradicts your claim that the legal justifications for same-sex marriage won't be a slippery slope to allowing other kinds of marriages.
    I see no justification for outlawing polygamy so the notion that the arguments for gay marriage can be used to legalize polygamy is not inherently problematic until someone can show why polygamy is inherently problematic.

    Now I find things like child marriage to be problematic but then there is no valid argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to that so again the slippery slope argument does not hold up. The law that all parties in a marriage must consent will ensure that child marriage is not legalized and gay marriage in no way conflicts with that law.

 

 
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •