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.

[East of Eden]

Would flavi0 suggest we make divorce and remarriage illegal?

Yes, if the majority favor it.

You have given no reason why gay marriage should be illegal.

Think I'll start a thread: There is no rational reason to stop three people from marrying.

We typically only make things illegal when they present significant and immediate danger of harm to others.

Not always, prostitution for example.

[kayky]

We do base our laws on the will of the people, which even in California is against gay marriage.

This is only true as long as "the will of the people" is in line with the Constitution. One purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority.

[kayky]

Think I'll start a thread: There is no rational reason to stop three people from marrying.

You are right. There is no rational reason to make illegal plural marriage among consenting adults.

[East of Eden]

Think I'll start a thread: There is no rational reason to stop three people from marrying.

You are right. There is no rational reason to make illegal plural marriage among consenting adults.

I give you credit for consistency.

[East of Eden]

We do base our laws on the will of the people, which even in California is against gay marriage.

This is only true as long as "the will of the people" is in line with the Constitution.

The Constitution is silent on gay marriage, although I'm pretty sure how the Founders would have felt about it.

[Beto]

We do base our laws on the will of the people, which even in California is against gay marriage.

This is only true as long as "the will of the people" is in line with the Constitution.

The Constitution is silent on gay marriage,

If you're saying that, I suppose it specifically speaks of other types?

although I'm pretty sure how the Founders would have felt about it.

Yes... and you identify completely with them, do you?

[McCulloch]

Again this point is irrelevant since we do not base our laws on anyone's religion.

We do base our laws on the will of the people, which even in California is against gay marriage.

I think that you base your laws on the will of the people, within the framework of the constitution which protects the rights of the minority. Even in California.

Would flavi0 suggest we make divorce and remarriage illegal?

Yes, if the majority favor it.

If the majority favored it, would it then be a good thing to make Christianity illegal?

[East of Eden]

If the majority favored it, would it then be a good thing to make Christianity illegal?

Doesn't matter what I think, it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is no similar specific Constitutional protection for the right of two (or three) homosexuals to marry each other.

[East of Eden]

If you're saying that, I suppose it specifically speaks of other types?

It doesn't, which means this issue should be left to the states, which oppose gay marriage in every referendum.

Yes... and you identify completely with them, do you?

Did I say I did?

[Beto]

If you're saying that, I suppose it specifically speaks of other types?

It doesn't, which means this issue should be left to the states, which oppose gay marriage in every referendum.

Isn't that all perfectly convenient and suited to your personal inclinations... that you have an amendment protecting your interest, and none protecting the interest of a minority you don't relate to. That's mighty Christian of you... Fortunately, some states are wising up, and refusing to ride the "ignorant and prejudiced majority" bandwagon.