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.

[OnceConvinced]

Male and female are a completely different issue to black and white. To me that's a very big strawman.

Please explain the morally significant difference.

TC

Morals are not the issue in my mind. The issue is a matter of sex, it's not a racial issue.

[Thought Criminal]

Please explain the morally significant difference.

Morals are not the issue in my mind. The issue is a matter of sex, it's not a racial issue.

What I'm asking is precisely how it's ok to forbid marriage based on gender, but not on race. Both seem like irrelevant details.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

But if it's illegal, then it's like any other crime isn't it? You can't always police it effectively. People are going to smoke marijuana in their own homes, even though it's illegal. People are going to download music and movies off the Internet, but you can't do much to stop that either. Just because something is difficult to police and even though you may not be able to stop the perpetrators from offending again, doesn't mean you should make something legal.

I think maybe you missed my point here. Performing a gay marriage ceremony is illegal nowhere in the world that I know of. The ceremony simply isn't legally binding and no marriage license is issued. When people refer to legalizing gay marriage, they are referring to making said ceremony legally binding, not making the ceremony itself legal. So, the ceremony isn't illegal, nor should it be unless you want the government to have the right to censor whatever it views as offensive.

[OnceConvinced]

Please explain the morally significant difference.

Morals are not the issue in my mind. The issue is a matter of sex, it's not a racial issue.

What I'm asking is precisely how it's ok to forbid marriage based on gender, but not on race. Both seem like irrelevant details.

TC

Well like I said, Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Race is irrelevent.

But anyway, also like I said, I'm not interested in getting into a big debate on this one, which is why I only originally voted and didn't post. It mainly comes down to personal prejudices and I don't feel obliged to justify them to anyone here.

[OnceConvinced]

But if it's illegal, then it's like any other crime isn't it? You can't always police it effectively. People are going to smoke marijuana in their own homes, even though it's illegal. People are going to download music and movies off the Internet, but you can't do much to stop that either. Just because something is difficult to police and even though you may not be able to stop the perpetrators from offending again, doesn't mean you should make something legal.

I think maybe you missed my point here. Performing a gay marriage ceremony is illegal nowhere in the world that I know of. The ceremony simply isn't legally binding and no marriage license is issued. When people refer to legalizing gay marriage, they are referring to making said ceremony legally binding, not making the ceremony itself legal. So, the ceremony isn't illegal, nor should it be unless you want the government to have the right to censor whatever it views as offensive.

OK, I think I see what your'e saying. I guess really when it comes down to it the wedding ceremony itself it just that - a ceremony and that itself does not make a marriage legally binding. It's the signing of the legal papers that make it a marriage. I guess what I don't like the thought of is a wedding ceremony that involves same sex couples. Probably not so much the signing of legal papers.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

But if it's illegal, then it's like any other crime isn't it? You can't always police it effectively. People are going to smoke marijuana in their own homes, even though it's illegal. People are going to download music and movies off the Internet, but you can't do much to stop that either. Just because something is difficult to police and even though you may not be able to stop the perpetrators from offending again, doesn't mean you should make something legal.

I think maybe you missed my point here. Performing a gay marriage ceremony is illegal nowhere in the world that I know of. The ceremony simply isn't legally binding and no marriage license is issued. When people refer to legalizing gay marriage, they are referring to making said ceremony legally binding, not making the ceremony itself legal. So, the ceremony isn't illegal, nor should it be unless you want the government to have the right to censor whatever it views as offensive.

OK, I think I see what your'e saying. I guess really when it comes down to it the wedding ceremony itself it just that - a ceremony and that itself does not make a marriage legally binding. It's the signing of the legal papers that make it a marriage. I guess what I don't like the thought of is a wedding ceremony that involves same sex couples. Probably not so much the signing of legal papers.

That, the signing of the legal papers, is what the fight to legalize gay marriage is focusing on: giving gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples. Would you be willing to support that, given that the ceremony is already legal?

[OnceConvinced]

But if it's illegal, then it's like any other crime isn't it? You can't always police it effectively. People are going to smoke marijuana in their own homes, even though it's illegal. People are going to download music and movies off the Internet, but you can't do much to stop that either. Just because something is difficult to police and even though you may not be able to stop the perpetrators from offending again, doesn't mean you should make something legal.

I think maybe you missed my point here. Performing a gay marriage ceremony is illegal nowhere in the world that I know of. The ceremony simply isn't legally binding and no marriage license is issued. When people refer to legalizing gay marriage, they are referring to making said ceremony legally binding, not making the ceremony itself legal. So, the ceremony isn't illegal, nor should it be unless you want the government to have the right to censor whatever it views as offensive.

OK, I think I see what your'e saying. I guess really when it comes down to it the wedding ceremony itself it just that - a ceremony and that itself does not make a marriage legally binding. It's the signing of the legal papers that make it a marriage. I guess what I don't like the thought of is a wedding ceremony that involves same sex couples. Probably not so much the signing of legal papers.

That, the signing of the legal papers, is what the fight to legalize gay marriage is focusing on: giving gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples. Would you be willing to support that, given that the ceremony is already legal?

Well I was never against giving them the same legal rights. It's just the whole "marriage" and "wedding" thing that I have an issue with.

[Thought Criminal]

Well like I said, Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Race is irrelevent.

So you keep saying, but why should anyone believe you? What does "meant to be" mean, anyhow? Meant to be by whom? By you?

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

a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

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.

But anyway, also like I said, I'm not interested in getting into a big debate on this one, which is why I only originally voted and didn't post. It mainly comes down to personal prejudices and I don't feel obliged to justify them to anyone here.

Your personal prejudices aren't justifiable, which is why the only moral choice you have is to bite your tongue and consistently vote for equal rights.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Well I was never against giving them the same legal rights. It's just the whole "marriage" and "wedding" thing that I have an issue with.

If you don't call it by what it is, it's not only insulting but it deprives them of equal rights. As I've explained, a civil union, unlike a marriage, is not portable.

TC

[OnceConvinced]

Well like I said, Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Race is irrelevent.

So you keep saying, but why should anyone believe you? What does "meant to be" mean, anyhow? Meant to be by whom? By you?

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

a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

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.

I'm only repeating myself because you don't seem to be getting the message. It's not like I am trying to insist that my point of view is right and that you are wrong. I simply gave my opinion and have no desire to attempt to support or justify it in anyway. So I'm a bigot. That's fine by me. I can also be an arrogant SOB some times too. I can be unreasonable. I can also be insulting. So sue me.

Your personal prejudices aren't justifiable, which is why the only moral choice you have is to bite your tongue and consistently vote for equal rights.

I have never claimed, in this thread, that my prejudices are justifiable. Prejudices by definition are normally not justifiable. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I said in my first post that I had no good reasons to think the way I do. But I have come to accept in myself that I do have prejudices, just like everyone does and am not going to deny them just to make someone on the Internet feel better. Ask me again in five years whether I still feel the same way and you may find I don't. Who knows? But right now I have no problem with how I feel on the issue and my opinion is not affecting anyone else. Do I care whether other people accept my feelings on this? No, I don't.

I hope you got the message this time, that this is a debate I don't care to indulge in, nor do I have to justify myself to anyone. Just live with that and move on. Please don't make me have to repeat myself again, because that's basically all you'll get. I'm not going to go any deeper on this topic.