If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2024, 06:22:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?  (Read 8144 times)
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2008, 08:48:24 PM »

You are part of the lunatic left?  I was unaware

Nope, but I share their position on this issue.

You don't seriously put your pride in winning above the ethical thing to do, do you?
Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,157
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2008, 08:49:49 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2008, 10:18:53 PM by Torie »

The only issue in my mind is should gay couples get federal benefits, like social security survivor benefits. But beyond that, the claims about the harm calling gay partnerships marriages, rather than civil unions (that is what this is about these days), are bogus. What this is really about is demeaning such relationships - giving them the finger - because well, it's different.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2008, 09:08:17 PM »

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2008, 09:12:38 PM »

You are part of the lunatic left?  I was unaware

Nope, but I share their position on this issue.

You don't seriously put your pride in winning above the ethical thing to do, do you?
Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS
lol dumbest thing I have ever heard. Drawing the line of what? Bigotry, and hatred? How is it "hippie BS" for wanting equal rights to a large group of people? Really I would like to know.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,537
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2008, 10:12:57 PM »

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.

Alcon, it's the flowers in your hair... 
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,779
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2008, 10:56:57 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2008, 10:58:48 PM by Frodo »

As much as I am willing to allow fairness on behalf of same-sex couples, there is a certain threshold I simply cannot bring myself to cross -marriage is between a man and a woman wedded in holy matrimony, and I just cannot bear the mere thought of seeing two people of the same gender marrying each other. 
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,261


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2008, 12:03:22 AM »

What I don't understand is why liberals and the various sodomites don't advocate separation of marriage and state.  It's interesting to me when liberals are angered about existing laws, their solution is not to repeal old laws, but to make new laws.

Most gays have no intention of getting married as it is; they would rather participate in pride parades and wave their penises at traffic.  Gay marriage is all politics and nothing more.  Somebody wake me up when all this crap is over.

I concur for the most part. Most of the gay people I've known live a totally different lifestyle where anything goes. I am for Civil Unions for those who truly are in a longterm committed relationship, but those are few and far between. I worry about them gaming the system to take advantage of the tax benefits you get when you are married. I could "marry" by best friend while we were living together so we could get the benefits and then divorce him once we really found a girl.

But for the most part, we can instate civil unions, but most of this cry is political. Most gay people don't want to get married and sleep with about any guy that has a nice dick.

I'm kind of worried you'd be making the same argument, with slightly different wording, against interracial marriage, if this were 100 years ago.

Um, how so?
Logged
cannonia
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.42, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2008, 05:06:06 AM »

Marriage is a social institution.  Marriage has traditionally seen to the fulfillment of (primarily) the male's sexual needs, the female's need for support and protection, and the raising of children.  This is probably still the general view of marriage among most Americans, though it has become less relevant since women have entered the workforce, divorce rates have increased, birth control has become common, acceptance of alternate lifestyles has increased, etc.

Government policies have recognized marriage and conferred certain privileges to the benefit of orderly society.  For example, a surviving spouse is assumed to inherit property barring specific directions to the contrary.  Since men were generally the providers, statutes like these protected widows with little or no other means of support.  More recently, Big Government confers special rights to married couples, often as an amelioration of or exception to government rules (i.e. income taxes, medical decision-making guidelines directed by legislation), but also in forms such as government survivor benefits.

Of course, we no longer have the same expectations of marriage: People marry for love rather than security, get divorced, and decide whether or not to have children independently of marital status.  If marriage is about love, the issue of fairness for homosexuals comes into play.  But really, at the point where the traditional reasons for marriage no longer apply, is it a better question why same-sex marriage is not allowed, or why marriage still has official government sanction?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2008, 10:29:50 AM »
« Edited: October 04, 2008, 11:06:48 AM by Alcon »


A group with known social problems, and factors that make them disinterested in "settling down."  You don't think there aren't stereotypes about black promiscuity, too?  And that's not traditional, either.

That was really just an offhand comment.  Parallels alone do not justify calling a position dangerous or ludicrous.  The primary point of my post stands:  basing your argument entirely on anecdotal evidence (from a college!), and then extrapolating it universally to decide that non-promiscuous gays are a trivial hyperminority, isn't intellectually honest.  I know plenty of dedicated gay couples, and the gay folks I know aren't any sluttier than the average teenagers.  Even if they were, why use anecdotes instead of requests for marriage in countries that have legalized gay marriage?

But, honestly, I was more talking about this sort of argument...

As much as I am willing to allow fairness on behalf of same-sex couples, there is a certain threshold I simply cannot bring myself to cross -marriage is between a man and a woman wedded in holy matrimony, and I just cannot bear the mere thought of seeing two people of the same gender marrying each other. 

...which sounds exactly like the historical arguments against miscegenation.  Sorry, Frodo.  But it does.

Parallels aren't of great concern until you present an argument that could literally just substitute something for "man and woman" and come up with something you probably consider abhorrent, but would have been a mainstream opinion 100 years ago.  When that happens, I think it's time to strongly reconsider my opinion.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2008, 10:51:11 AM »

The only issue in my mind is should gay couples get federal benefits, like social security survivor benefits.

Absolutely 100% in favour of removing government-sanctioned financial discrimination against gay couples, such as social securtiy/tax breaks/superannuation, etc. I know that isn't the issue this thread is about, but I agree with that 100%.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2008, 01:37:02 PM »

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.
The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.
Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,532
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2008, 02:00:54 PM »

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.
The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.
thank you for restating what you just said. a substantive response would be nice, though.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2008, 02:45:32 PM »

The typical reason is moral condemnation of homosexuality. Obviously.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2008, 04:31:58 PM »

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.
The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.
thank you for restating what you just said. a substantive response would be nice, though.
Substanative?  How is it not, the idea that believing marriage is one man, one woman making you a bigot is where the logic is lacking
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2008, 05:41:54 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2008, 05:45:03 PM by Alcon »

The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.

Yes, I heard you the first three times.

Now explain how my belief is "hippie BS," or at least how I'm a hippie.  And, no, eating Veggie Burgers does not make me a hippie.

Thinking marriage is between a man and a woman does not make you a bigot.  Refusing to explain or re-think an opinion because it makes you uncomfortable, or because it's traditional, would make you an idiot, not a bigot.  Not saying that's what you're doing, but unless you stop repeating the same crap over and over again, I have to assume it is.

More to the point:  Stop delaying your eventual ass-kicking!
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2008, 10:00:24 PM »

Has nothing to do with pride in winning.  It has to do with drawing the line, the line which has been pushed back so far its time to push back.  I'm fed up with people buying this "equality" crap, conservatives and others with some values need to stand up and stop buying this hippie BS

OK, now, backtracking, please explain why my position is "hippie BS."

In a way that involves my position, not whatever positions/attitudes other people hold, preferably.  I.e., I want to hear about why my position is "hippie BS," "loony," whatever.  Please.
The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.
thank you for restating what you just said. a substantive response would be nice, though.
Substanative?  How is it not, the idea that believing marriage is one man, one woman making you a bigot is where the logic is lacking
No one ever said that, there are okay reasons to be against gay marriage and retarded ones. We have seen some okay ones in the thread(of course ones I still disagree with but are open to) and we have seen one retarded one. Guess which one that is?
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2008, 08:48:11 AM »

The idea that denying gays the right to marry is "bigotry" or "hatred" is hippie BS and nothing short of it.

Yes, I heard you the first three times.

Now explain how my belief is "hippie BS," or at least how I'm a hippie.  And, no, eating Veggie Burgers does not make me a hippie.

Thinking marriage is between a man and a woman does not make you a bigot.  Refusing to explain or re-think an opinion because it makes you uncomfortable, or because it's traditional, would make you an idiot, not a bigot.  Not saying that's what you're doing, but unless you stop repeating the same crap over and over again, I have to assume it is.

More to the point:  Stop delaying your eventual ass-kicking!
I have explained my opinion, which is that I feel that if you get pushed, you push back.  Liberals have made a habit of setting the morals of this country so low, that any sense of decency is regarded as bigotry and hatred, etc.  I am opposed to gay marriage because I feel it is immoral, but I oppose it being legalized because I oppose the moral line being pushed so far
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2008, 11:55:13 AM »
« Edited: October 05, 2008, 12:06:20 PM by Alcon »

I have explained my opinion, which is that I feel that if you get pushed, you push back.  Liberals have made a habit of setting the morals of this country so low, that any sense of decency is regarded as bigotry and hatred, etc.  I am opposed to gay marriage because I feel it is immoral, but I oppose it being legalized because I oppose the moral line being pushed so far

I've eliminated the parts of your post that are total jetsam for you.  Remember, you're talking to me, not "hippies" or "liberals."

So, please now elaborate on how it is immoral, since that's the logical crux of your argument.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2008, 05:24:41 PM »

I have explained my opinion, which is that I feel that if you get pushed, you push back.  Liberals have made a habit of setting the morals of this country so low, that any sense of decency is regarded as bigotry and hatred, etc.  I am opposed to gay marriage because I feel it is immoral, but I oppose it being legalized because I oppose the moral line being pushed so far

I've eliminated the parts of your post that are total jetsam for you.  Remember, you're talking to me, not "hippies" or "liberals."

So, please now elaborate on how it is immoral, since that's the logical crux of your argument.
First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2008, 06:32:22 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2008, 06:35:30 PM by Alcon »

First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

Right, but you're not judging an idea on its supporters, since that's a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

You're not so petty as to commit an immoral act because it gives you the emotional satisfaction of defeating a group you don't like.  Or are you?  After all, that would be immoral in itself -- your own personal thrill vs. the right thing to do.  So, nothing you're said so far is relevant to your argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.

There's a lot of cruft here, but basically, you're saying:  My religious beliefs are against it, but they don't reflect on my political beliefs, so that's irrelevant.  No idea why you keep mentioning irrelevant things.

I'm now going to re-post your paragraph, with the stuff you've admitted as being irrelevant stricken (feel free to contest this):

First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.
  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.

So, we have basically one issue you present:  the fear that marriage benefits will be abused for economic gain, at a level greater than your (possibly arbitrary and definitely unspecified) comfort, because there are fewer gay couples than straight couples.  That, apparently, you see as immoral (because it is the only argument you have presented without striking its relevance, directly or logically.)

This is a potentially fair claim.  However, how does that make your opposition "hippie BS"?  Perhaps they place greater interest in social equality than you, and less important on the likelihood of abuse.  Perhaps they think abuse levels would be lower.  Either way, it's a matter of interpretation and subjective preference.

In this case, you have failed to provide any evidence of same-sex marriages being extensively abused for economic benefits.  You also haven't recognized that opposite-sex marriages have a potential for abuse, and you need to realize that the distinction you're making (one is acceptable abuse, the other is "hippie BS") is arbitrary and subjective.  It does not make your belief invalid.  It makes it unsupported and unclear.

In other words, your opinion is based on only one logical grounds (the likelihood of abuse), to which you have provided no evidence, no concrete "litmus test" for an unacceptable level of abuse, and then defend with a bunch of vague statements about morality.  On the other hand, you reject the moral arguments of your opposition as "hippie BS."  Is your belief on such shaky ground that you have to do that, or is it just reactionary?  (No need to respond to that false dichotomy Smiley)

Summary:  Your conviction is unsupported, seemingly arbitrary, technical/subjective and not established in concrete philosophy, and apparently necessitates bringing in arguments you admittedly see as irrelevant to provide "meat."  In other words, from what you've presented, it's not nearly as strong and concrete as you seem to think it is.  Off yer high horse, bud.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2008, 07:04:30 PM »

Alcon, all I can say is that you take political forums seriously buddy Smiley

You are greatly overcomplicating this issue.

Here it is in a nutshell:
I am personally opposed to gay marriage.  I would usually not let my personal convictions deny anything to others (see my views on drugs and prostiutition).  However, this issue is being abused by the left as a rallying issue for equality and to label those with moral values "bigots".  I feel like the line has been pushed too far and its time that we stop and push back a little bit.  Civil Unions are fine with me, although I think they only lead to greater problems as one side pushes for all out marriage and the other pushes for nothing (an example I actually used in my SAT essay this weekend Tongue)
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,707
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2008, 07:08:50 PM »

I think he's saying it's basically a knee-jerk reaction.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,157
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2008, 10:12:08 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2008, 11:02:01 PM by Torie »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you elucidated why, DWTL? Maybe you have, and I missed it. Just asking.

One odd thing, is out there on the Fruited Plain, it is more and more just about what name is given to gay unions, with the only thing  left to argue about is the moniker, and the moniker alone. Should this gay thing be a union about which none dare give it a name of marriage? 

Heck, the California supreme court decision was solely about the issue of moniker, and held that denying the moniker violated a fundamental un-enumerated but extant right in the California state constitution  regarding  the right of pursuit of liberty to explore the self, without being demeaned and degraded with substandard labeling. It was as if they had copied and pasted the soaring rhetoric of Justice Kennedy of the Supremes, who sometimes I thinks takes a toke of some very good weed, before he puts pen to paper.
Logged
cannonia
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.42, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2008, 10:34:27 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you elucidated why, DWTL? Maybe you have, and I missed it. Just asking.

One odd thing, is out there on the Fruited Plain, it is more and more just about what name is given to gay unions, with the only thing  left to argue about is the moniker, and the moniker alone. Should this gay thing be a union about which none dare give it a name of marriage? 

Heck, the California supreme court decision was solely about the issue of moniker, and held that denying the moniker violated a fundamental un-enumerated but extant right in the California state constitution  regarding  the right of pursuit of liberty to explore the self, without being demeaned and degraded with substandard labeling. It was as if they had copied and pasted the soaring rhetoric of Justice Kennedy of the Supremes, who sometimes I thinks takes a toke of some very good week, before he puts pen to paper.

But they use so many big words!  It's scholarly!
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2008, 10:59:07 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2008, 11:03:09 PM by Alcon »

Alcon, all I can say is that you take political forums seriously buddy Smiley

You are greatly overcomplicating this issue.

Here it is in a nutshell:
I am personally opposed to gay marriage.  I would usually not let my personal convictions deny anything to others (see my views on drugs and prostiutition).  However, this issue is being abused by the left as a rallying issue for equality and to label those with moral values "bigots".  I feel like the line has been pushed too far and its time that we stop and push back a little bit.  Civil Unions are fine with me, although I think they only lead to greater problems as one side pushes for all out marriage and the other pushes for nothing (an example I actually used in my SAT essay this weekend Tongue)

Right, so, in other words, this really is about the opposition to you.  Your only logical argument seems to be "it could lead to abuses."  But you only argued that when you were forced to present a logical argument, and now have abandoned it to complain about the left some more.  Your beliefs--moral, theirs--whiny.  Gotcha.  Now, let's move on to things that are at all relevant.

You won't explain to me what "moral values" you see here, just that you have them.  Cool.  But, to me, unjustified denial of rights to a group because of your own grudges is immoral.  And I should hope that, as someone so ostensibly concerned with morality as you, you would be chomping at the bit for a chance to defend your honor.  Instead, you're just repeating how annoyed you are that "hippies" question the morality you're so vociferously vague about.

The question I posed to you is in three simple parts:

1. If your sole logical argument is "it's ripe for abuse": Where is your evidence of this occurring, and what level of real use vs. abuse would be acceptable?  How do you arrive at this "litmus test"?

2. If your argument is "it's immoral":  I've presented my argument for why gay marriage is moral.  Now, you need to present an argument for why it's immoral.  Tradition and visceral feeling are not valid arguments; neither is theology, since you've taken it off the table.

3. If your argument is that your happiness from defeating the left is more important than doing the right thing, please explain how this fits into the moral system that you hold so dear.

Whichever you choose to answer, I'm sorry if the complex nature of reality is making it difficult to pass off mantras as morality.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 10 queries.