There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

You seem to be invoking meaning, but the dictionary is quite clear about this.

Really?

Main Entry: mar-riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in alegal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law "see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

I'd say that the dictionary is far less clear on marriage than you say. I would have no problem amending this definition to include same-sex couples, but, as it stands now, the definition of marriage is disputed at best.

[Thought Criminal]

You seem to be invoking meaning, but the dictionary is quite clear about this.

Really?

Main Entry: mar-riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in alegal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law "see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

I'd say that the dictionary is far less clear on marriage than you say. I would have no problem amending this definition to include same-sex couples, but, as it stands now, the definition of marriage is disputed at best.

Dictionaries don't mandate meaning, they reflect it. You simply made the mistake of consulting an out of date dictionary.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I'm not sure why you think that repeating an unsupported statement gives it any weight. You're acting no differently than InTheFlesh, frankly, but you're not a child, so you have no excuse.

TC, what are you trying to accomplish here? OnceConvinced has admitted that he has biases that prevent him from supporting gay marriage. He is open to rational arguments for gay marriage and he hasn't tried to deny them, in fact he has admitted that he has no rational arguments against it. He just feels himself unable to get rid of his biases.
In my opinion, that makes his actions deserve equal praise as someone who publicly admits that drinking 30 beers a day is rationally bad but still does it because he has an alcohol problem.

With your ad hominem remarks against him and InTheFlesh you are poisoning the good spirit of the debate. This is not only against the rules, but runs also directly against the interests of gay people. An atmosphere of political correctness only makes opponents of gay marriage keep their opinions for themselves instead of discussing them. Treating them with contempt just makes them avoid the debate.

[Evales]

I'm not sure why you think that repeating an unsupported statement gives it any weight. You're acting no differently than InTheFlesh, frankly, but you're not a child, so you have no excuse.

TC, what are you trying to accomplish here? OnceConvinced has admitted that he has biases that prevent him from supporting gay marriage. He is open to rational arguments for gay marriage and he hasn't tried to deny them, in fact he has admitted that he has no rational arguments against it. He just feels himself unable to get rid of his biases.
In my opinion, that makes his actions deserve equal praise as someone who publicly admits that drinking 30 beers a day is rationally bad but still does it because he has an alcohol problem.

With your ad hominem remarks against him and InTheFlesh you are poisoning the good spirit of the debate. This is not only against the rules, but runs also directly against the interests of gay people. An atmosphere of political correctness only makes opponents of gay marriage keep their opinions for themselves instead of discussing them. Treating them with contempt just makes them avoid the debate.

I think Thought Criminals problem with it, as is mine, is that people like OnceConvinced can go out and vote on this topic and be restricting the rights of people in real life. And he would have no justifiable reason for doing so.

OnceConvinced is right a debate on an internet forum does not matter. You can be as openly prejudiced as you want and you will still not be affecting anyone. But to restrict the rights of a person, to oppress a certain type of people for no reason, is disgusting. I am disgusted by the thought that people will not have the rights they deserve for no reason.

[Sjoerd]

I'm not sure why you think that repeating an unsupported statement gives it any weight. You're acting no differently than InTheFlesh, frankly, but you're not a child, so you have no excuse.

TC, what are you trying to accomplish here? OnceConvinced has admitted that he has biases that prevent him from supporting gay marriage. He is open to rational arguments for gay marriage and he hasn't tried to deny them, in fact he has admitted that he has no rational arguments against it. He just feels himself unable to get rid of his biases.
In my opinion, that makes his actions deserve equal praise as someone who publicly admits that drinking 30 beers a day is rationally bad but still does it because he has an alcohol problem.

With your ad hominem remarks against him and InTheFlesh you are poisoning the good spirit of the debate. This is not only against the rules, but runs also directly against the interests of gay people. An atmosphere of political correctness only makes opponents of gay marriage keep their opinions for themselves instead of discussing them. Treating them with contempt just makes them avoid the debate.

I think Thought Criminals problem with it, as is mine, is that people like OnceConvinced can go out and vote on this topic and be restricting the rights of people in real life. And he would have no justifiable reason for doing so.

OnceConvinced is right a debate on an internet forum does not matter. You can be as openly prejudiced as you want and you will still not be affecting anyone. But to restrict the rights of a person, to oppress a certain type of people for no reason, is disgusting. I am disgusted by the thought that people will not have the rights they deserve for no reason.

I am not objecting against TC's opinion. In fact, I completely agree with him. It is his contempt for others and their opinions that I am objecting to, especially in the present context. OnceConvinced does not try to promote or even defend his sentiments. In fact, he seems to be ashamed of them, which is a very good reason to treat him with civility and respect. Civility and respect is owed anyway, but especially in this case.

[otseng]

You're acting no differently than InTheFlesh, frankly, but you're not a child, so you have no excuse.

Moderator comment:

This type of comment would be considered a personal comment, rather than addressing the topic. Please avoid statements such as this.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

You seem to be invoking meaning, but the dictionary is quite clear about this.

Really?

Main Entry: mar-riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in alegal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law "see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

I'd say that the dictionary is far less clear on marriage than you say. I would have no problem amending this definition to include same-sex couples, but, as it stands now, the definition of marriage is disputed at best.

Dictionaries don't mandate meaning, they reflect it. You simply made the mistake of consulting an out of date dictionary.

TC

No, in fact, I didn't. The definition is in dispute. Like you said, dictionaries reflect meaning, so the fact that the meaning is in dispute is reflected by two dictionaries having two separate definitions. The very reason the debate over gay marriage is still going on is that both sides have different definitions of marriage.

I agree that marriage should apply to same sex couples, but the rest of the world simply isn't nodding in agreement, saying the definition you provided is the correct one. It is disputed, like I said before.

[OnceConvinced]

I see three more people have voted "no" now.

I think people have raised some valid points on this thread. Things to consider, that's for sure.

[Evales]

I am not objecting against TC's opinion. In fact, I completely agree with him. It is his contempt for others and their opinions that I am objecting to, especially in the present context. OnceConvinced does not try to promote or even defend his sentiments. In fact, he seems to be ashamed of them, which is a very good reason to treat him with civility and respect. Civility and respect is owed anyway, but especially in this case.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. Yes I do think that we should treat OnceConvinced with civility. He is one of the only people who have came forward for voting no the other being I think Easyrider.

Also sorry to OnceConvinced. Re reading my post it may have seemed as if I was attacking you. I was not. I am at least glad that you will speak about how you feel.
Thanks!

[Thought Criminal]

TC, what are you trying to accomplish here? OnceConvinced has admitted that he has biases that prevent him from supporting gay marriage. He is open to rational arguments for gay marriage and he hasn't tried to deny them, in fact he has admitted that he has no rational arguments against it. He just feels himself unable to get rid of his biases.

I believe I've answered this question, even before OnceConvinced took this stand. In specific, if you have an irrational bias, it is your job to avoid ever acting on it. This includes making sure it doesn't affect how you vote, who your hire or generally how you treat people. You can admit to your failing if you wish, but you don't get to advocate for it.

In my opinion, that makes his actions deserve equal praise as someone who publicly admits that drinking 30 beers a day is rationally bad but still does it because he has an alcohol problem.

Admitting that 30 beers is too much might be a start. Drinking fewer beers, however, would be truly admirable.

With your ad hominem remarks against him and InTheFlesh you are poisoning the good spirit of the debate. This is not only against the rules, but runs also directly against the interests of gay people. An atmosphere of political correctness only makes opponents of gay marriage keep their opinions for themselves instead of discussing them. Treating them with contempt just makes them avoid the debate.

Let's not be hasty with the accusations. First of all, it is a simple fact that InTheFlesh has a habit of repeating entirely unsupported claims. He doesn't understand burden of proof at all, and he thinks each sentences needs a carriage return. For these reasons and others, I've concluded that he's probably just a kid and may well grow out of these deficits. OnceConvinced, however, is no child, so I won't give him this excuse. For that matter, he hardly needs you to defend him.

I want to be very clear about one thing: Demanding equality is not political correctness and I will not back down on this matter. Get me banned if you can, but I'm not changing. Nothing can stop me from pointing out injustices when I see them.

TC