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.

[Thought Criminal]

I would concur.

It is disturbing that some think that the fact that a majority in the U.S. now seem to support gay marriage bans, that this makes it OK. They seem to ignore the fact that this is how slavery and Jim Crow remained in place for so long. They were clearly wrong, even though they were supported by majorities and voted into place.

When the courts step in to rectify this, as I think will eventually happen at the Supreme Court level, these same people will scream about judicial activism and the overthrow of majority rule, again forgetting that the courts portrayed an integral role in dismantling "U.S. apartheid."

There is a distinction between majority rule and democracy. In the latter, the minorities still have protections, no matter what the majority wants.

I do not trust the SCOTUS. Not one bit.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

This is precisely the legal issue I referred to before. The DOMA is almost certainly unconstitutional because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

It is this clause that is responsible for, say, California being forced to accept a marriage even if the wedding was in Arkansas. Note that this is so even if the wedding would not have been legal in California, such as if Arkansas had a lower age limit. The Arkansas couple doesn't have to remarry in each state they pass through. Likewise, couples married in Canada don't have to remarry when they cross the border.

But, said clause is not responsible for Great Britain, for example, being forced to accept a marriage if the wedding was in Spain. Therefore, my statement holds true, just not necessarily in the United States.

The fact that same-sex marriage is legal in some places suffices to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages as one possibility. In fact, this is precisely what my dictionary did: instead of changing the main entry to remove the mention of male/female, it added a parallel entry specifying the same-sex variant. Here it is:

It is enough to provide an alternate definition, which is equally valid to, but does not supplant the existing one.

[Thought Criminal]

But, said clause is not responsible for Great Britain, for example, being forced to accept a marriage if the wedding was in Spain. Therefore, my statement holds true, just not necessarily in the United States.

I'm not up on how the EU handles this. I suspect that there is something similar, though. Does anyone here happen to know?

It is enough to provide an alternate definition, which is equally valid to, but does not supplant the existing one.

Well, it actually does. Imagine if the word "tumple" originally meant "cloth that's dry", but then we add the alternate definition, "cloth that's wet". Put together, it means that "tumple" refers to "cloth that's dry or cloth that's wet", or more simply, "cloth".

When we apply the same technique to the MW definition, we get, "the state of being united with another person as their spouse in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law".

TC

[Sjoerd]

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.

He wasn't advocating his biases. And I have already stated that I fully agree with your opinion, but not with the way you state them. I am mostly angered how you screwed up a perfect opportunity for a constructive discussion in the interest of gay people. OnceConvinced's position isn't that different from that of jgh9 (post 28), but jgh9 says that he would vote "yes" in a real-life situation.

So, your contemptful response isn't only against the rules, it is irrational from the interests of gays. The rational course of action would be to treat OnceConvinced's position with civility and see if he could be talked into an, albeit reluctant, "yes" voter.

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.

Good. Now try to condition yourself into adopting the same attitude towards biases and prejudices. If people admit them, praise them for doing so and see if they can be talked out of it.

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.

You fail to understand my argument. I never stated if your remarks are true or false. I stated that they poisoned the atmosphere of the debate. Gay rights do not thrive in an atmosphere of political correctness, but in one of openness, dialogue and tolerance for diversity. Therefore, your actions run against the interests of the same people whose rights you are defending. Hence, your behavior is not only against the rules, it is irrational and stupid.

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.

Again you fail to understand my argument. I do not object against your opinion, in fact I completely agree with it. I do not say that you should see biases or injustices as anything else than what they are. But you should do what is most rational in lessening them. In some situations, pointing them out loudly may be the best strategy. In other situations, a more civil approach is mandated. Refusal to adapt your strategy is irrational. You are a consequentialist, not a deontologist or a virtue ethic. So act on it. If you get yourself banned, you will no longer be in a position to point out any injustice or irrationality on this forum. Is that rational?

[Thought Criminal]

He wasn't advocating his biases. And I have already stated that I fully agree with your opinion, but not with the way you state them. I am mostly angered how you screwed up a perfect opportunity for a constructive discussion in the interest of gay people. OnceConvinced's position isn't that different from that of jgh9 (post 28), but jgh9 says that he would vote "yes" in a real-life situation.

As I said, he has an obligation not to let his biases affect how he votes in real life, and he has failed in this obligation. He likewise stated repeatedly that he has no interest in a constructive discussion and instead repeated his bigoted conclusion.

So, your contemptful response isn't only against the rules, it is irrational from the interests of gays. The rational course of action would be to treat OnceConvinced's position with civility and see if he could be talked into an, albeit reluctant, "yes" voter.

If there is a rule that requires me to pretend that bigotry is a good thing, then this is one rule I will not follow. Free speech means he's entitled to make bigoted statements, but I'm also entitled to call him on them.

Good. Now try to condition yourself into adopting the same attitude towards biases and prejudices. If people admit them, praise them for doing so and see if they can be talked out of it.

To remind you, he stated outright that he was not open to discussion on this matter.

You fail to understand my argument. I never stated if your remarks are true or false. I stated that they poisoned the atmosphere of the debate. Gay rights do not thrive in an atmosphere of political correctness, but in one of openness, dialogue and tolerance for diversity. Therefore, your actions run against the interests of the same people whose rights you are defending. Hence, your behavior is not only against the rules, it is irrational and stupid.

I simply disagree with your conclusions, particularly your interpretation of my actions and motives. Equal rights do not thrive in an atmosphere where bigoted remarks are allowed to pass unremarked. All it takes is silence to send the message that bigotry is ok.

Again you fail to understand my argument. I do not object against your opinion, in fact I completely agree with it. I do not say that you should see biases or injustices as anything else than what they are. But you should do what is most rational in lessening them. In some situations, pointing them out loudly may be the best strategy. In other situations, a more civil approach is mandated. Refusal to adapt your strategy is irrational. You are a consequentialist, not a deontologist or a virtue ethic. So act on it. If you get yourself banned, you will no longer be in a position to point out any injustice or irrationality on this forum. Is that rational?

There is nothing uncivil in pointing out bigotry. Rather, the incivility lies in making them in the first place. A policy of censoring myself to placate moderators would undermine my participation here. Go look up the difference between rule and act consequentialism before you attempt to comment on what's rational.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

But, said clause is not responsible for Great Britain, for example, being forced to accept a marriage if the wedding was in Spain. Therefore, my statement holds true, just not necessarily in the United States.

I'm not up on how the EU handles this. I suspect that there is something similar, though. Does anyone here happen to know?

As far as I know, the EU has no such law. Even if they did, however, my point remains because there are still many places in the world that don't recognize same-sex marriage.

[Sjoerd]

As I said, he has an obligation not to let his biases affect how he votes in real life, and he has failed in this obligation. He likewise stated repeatedly that he has no interest in a constructive discussion and instead repeated his bigoted conclusion.

No, he never drew any conclusion, he merely described his sentiments.

If there is a rule that requires me to pretend that bigotry is a good thing, then this is one rule I will not follow. Free speech means he's entitled to make bigoted statements, but I'm also entitled to call him on them.
...
Equal rights do not thrive in an atmosphere where bigoted remarks are allowed to pass unremarked. All it takes is silence to send the message that bigotry is ok.
...
Go look up the difference between rule and act consequentialism before you attempt to comment on what's rational.

I never said that you should approve or ignore his statements. There are more options available than just approve, ignore, or condemn. I will explain again: If people admit their biases, praising them for doing so might enable you to talk them out of it. A harsh response will end the dialogue and lets the other person walk away with his prejudices intact. If your goal is to reduce prejudices, you will have acted irrationally. Under which kind of consequentialism you file this is irrelevant.

I simply disagree with your conclusions, particularly your interpretation of my actions and motives.

I assume that your motives in this thread are to reduce biases and prejudices. Since you are a rational person, I assume that you do this in the most rational way. If either of these assumptions is false, please say so.

There is nothing uncivil in pointing out bigotry. Rather, the incivility lies in making them in the first place.

There is nothing uncivil with stating biases and sentiments in a descriptive way. This is done in psychology and social sciences all the time if they are the subject of study. Usually the researcher describes them in other people rather than himself, but this is irrelevant.
Stating biases in a normative way, promoting them or denying that they are biases, is a different matter, and is indeed uncivil and offending. However, OnceConvinced has never stated his biases that way.

[Word_Swordsman]

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.

Since God is implicated in this discussion I will mostly make my case on the basis of God's word, the Bible. Let me dispel the possibility of God having anything to do with creating homosexuality in a person. He has allowed prohibitions to survive thusands of years in the Tanach, specifically in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

The apostle Paul confirmed to Christians that abomination is still sin in Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

I won't rule out secular possibilities, such as genetic malfunctions, which of course can't logically be assigned to an act of God.

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.

It is true that to some limit God does allow mankind to engage in sin, from an individual to a national level, but is on record as having taken actions to punish individuals and nations for continuing in dangerous sin. Until He is provoked sufficiently a person can engage in as many sins as desired, but not escaping accountability to God and of course to neighbors & governments that impose moral laws to control behavior objectionable to a society or it's religion(s).

As for following God, He most certainly has not set up an infinite array of ways to follow Him. No person follows God (Jesus) any way they want while pleasing God. The bible sets out the parameters to follow to effect obedience.

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.

As far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality is listed as grievous as murder or rape. Biblically speaking God will not sanction an approval of one of those sins without ditching all of them. If homosexuality is now OK with God, then why not a serial killer/rapist/child molester having his way too?

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.

Biblically speaking there are plenty of rational reasons for prevention of that sin from becoming sanctioned by a society. What other nation sanctions that? That sin has long been held as an aberration in most if not all societies, from primitive to the most sophisticated, the few permitting it rapidly falling into destruction. It appears when that sin is "nationalized" a nation is in it's last stage of existence.

As far as reason/rationality/logic goes, what significant biological function is exercised through homosexuality, other than expressions of lust? What rationality is there in abusing the biological reasons for sex? What animals practice homosexuality? I ask that question for those here who believe men are among the animals.

Christians ought not oppress anyone, but we do have guidelines concerning more life-changing methods of dealing with those among us who persist in open sins without repentance.

[Sjoerd]

Now this is an example of bigotry veiled as a rational argument.

.
Let me dispel the possibility of God having anything to do with creating homosexuality in a person.

Of course he did, if he is omnipotent.

He has allowed prohibitions to survive thusands of years in the Tanach, specifically in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Others in this thread have made arguments against this particular verse. It would be polite if you at least addressed their points.

I won't rule out secular possibilities, such as genetic malfunctions, which of course can't logically be assigned to an act of God.

Of course it can. Omnipotent, remember? God does what God does.

It is true that to some limit God does allow mankind to engage in sin, from an individual to a national level, but is on record as having taken actions to punish individuals and nations for continuing in dangerous sin. Until He is provoked sufficiently a person can engage in as many sins as desired, but not escaping accountability to God and of course to neighbors & governments that impose moral laws to control behavior objectionable to a society or it's religion(s).

Oh really? A lot of continuation of sin seems to have gone on without divine intervention. I would be careful before you claim that you can infer anything about God's behaviour.

As for following God, He most certainly has not set up an infinite array of ways to follow Him. No person follows God (Jesus) any way they want while pleasing God. The bible sets out the parameters to follow to effect obedience.

So, that's why there so many Christians disagree on what the Bible actually means. If God wanted the Bible to be unambiguous, he would have written it that way. I think that he might want us to use our own heads and hearts.

As far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality is listed as grievous as murder or rape. Biblically speaking God will not sanction an approval of one of those sins without ditching all of them. If homosexuality is now OK with God, then why not a serial killer/rapist/child molester having his way too?

Maybe because they are HURTING people for their own pleasure? Humanists call this a violation of the golden rule, and some Christians like myself call it the Sin of the Wolf. These are absolutely incomparable to homosexuality.

Biblically speaking there are plenty of rational reasons for prevention of that sin from becoming sanctioned by a society. What other nation sanctions that? That sin has long been held as an aberration in most if not all societies, from primitive to the most sophisticated, the few permitting it rapidly falling into destruction. It appears when that sin is "nationalized" a nation is in it's last stage of existence.

Let me see... Greek society around 600 BC, very friendly towards homosexuality. Look, they get a Golden Age of Philosophy and after that, they conquer the world! God really must have hated them to let them fall into decline that rapidly.

As far as reason/rationality/logic goes, what significant biological function is exercised through homosexuality, other than expressions of lust? What rationality is there in abusing the biological reasons for sex? What animals practice homosexuality? I ask that question for those here who believe men are among the animals.

Interesting question. Sheep are doing it too, and so do bonobos. Do you believe that those animals are among the men? Or would you admit that they just follow their instincts given by God?

Christians ought not oppress anyone, but we do have guidelines concerning more life-changing methods of dealing with those among us who persist in open sins without repentance.

Like what, exorcism? And please don't pretend that you speak for all Christians here.

[InTheFlesh]

I look at it like this...
If it's a good thing,
we can all do it.
If we all do it,
We will be no more in 100yrs.

Doesn't nature itself show you that it's wrong?
Two men together can't reproduce,
therefore it is not natural.

BUT, I completely seperate church and state.
Gays SHOULD be allowed to marry in EVERY state.


I don't believe the law should tell us how to act morally.
Our current laws stem from the laws of God (Moses) that's why all the laws of the land are religious.