[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I almost missed it, but I see you've already started to shift your stance on the DOMA. First it was "we don't want to accept it" and now it's "we don't want to recognize it". Real subtle dude, haahahaha. From now on everything I see you take this stance, I'm going to smile knowing that I caused it.

I'm just curious why it's so important to you that we "accept" or "recognize" same-gender marriage. I personally cannot do either. I believe in sexual purity, and morally it's just a violation of my morals.

That's exactly what it was done for. It happened in a time where people were just starting to push for gay marriage and the conservatives knew that it was only a matter of time before a state legalized it and then ALL states would have to recognize those marriages. The DOMA was done to prevent all that.

So you think that eventually all states will allow it? Thanks for validating our fears of a slippery-slope. In time, your side will continue to wear down society, and in time morals will continue to slip. That doesn't mean we should just punt now and say "anything goes".

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I'm just curious why it's so important to you that we "accept" or "recognize" same-gender marriage.

Because to do otherwise is discriminatory, and denies benefits to people unjustly.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I believe in sexual purity, and morally it's just a violation of my morals.

Nobody is asking you to participate in a homosexual marriage, nor to participate in homosexual activity. I'm not sure taking advice about sexuality from ancient Hebrew nomads is wise, but you are free to do so.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

So you think that eventually all states will allow it?

Absolutely. It is inevitable. As dinosaurs who are against it die off and are replaced by youngins who aren't, it's only a matter of time.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

In time, your side will continue to wear down society, and in time morals will continue to slip.

Actually, in time, your backwards sense of morality will be marginalized and eventually eliminated. Though I suppose we both just said the same thing.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Because to do otherwise is discriminatory, and denies benefits to people unjustly.



Nobody is asking you to participate in a homosexual marriage, nor to participate in homosexual activity. I'm not sure taking advice about sexuality from ancient Hebrew nomads is wise, but you are free to do so.

Your strawman argument aside, I'm sorry, I just cannot endorse that which is immoral.

Absolutely. It is inevitable. As dinosaurs who are against it die off and are replaced by youngins who aren't, it's only a matter of time.



Actually, in time, your backwards sense of morality will be marginalized and eventually eliminated. Though I suppose we both just said the same thing.

How do you pretend to be able to judge me as "backwards" or wrong in my sense of morals? What is your standard?

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I just cannot endorse that which is immoral.

A: It's not immoral.
B: Ignoring A, you're not being asked to endorse anything. Nothing about your life will change.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

What is your standard?

Do no harm. Any act in which all participants do so of their own free will that does no harm* is by definition moral.

* Harm is a bit difficult to define, it's kind of a you know it when you see it kind of thing. If someone enjoys BDSM, and of their own free will and desire gets flogged, technically it causes harm, even if it's only a welt left behind from a spanking. Nonetheless, because of the voluntary nature and minor seriousness of the harm, it is not immoral.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I'm just curious why it's so important to you that we "accept" or "recognize" same-gender marriage.

Simple. I believe in equal protection and the separation of church and state.

I personally cannot do either.

Then don't. I couldn't care less. All I care about is the law.

So you think that eventually all states will allow it?

They'll be forced to if/when the matter reaches the SCOTUS.

Thanks for validating our fears of a slippery-slope. In time, your side will continue to wear down society, and in time morals will continue to slip. That doesn't mean we should just punt now and say "anything goes".

That's something for you and your church (not the government) to worry about.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Your strawman argument aside

What strawman argument?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Simple. I believe in equal protection and the separation of church and state.

How is that going to make your life better?

Then don't. I couldn't care less. All I care about is the law.



They'll be forced to if/when the matter reaches the SCOTUS.



That's something for you and your church (not the government) to worry about.

Interesting considering I didn't mention my church.

What strawman argument?

the poster I responded to made a strawman argument about the Bible.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

A: It's not immoral.
B: Ignoring A, you're not being asked to endorse anything. Nothing about your life will change.

A. It is immoral.
B. We all endorse things daily by our actions or what we say.

Do no harm. Any act in which all participants do so of their own free will that does no harm* is by definition moral.

At least by your standard, right? Why is that system better?

* Harm is a bit difficult to define, it's kind of a you know it when you see it kind of thing. If someone enjoys BDSM, and of their own free will and desire gets flogged, technically it causes harm, even if it's only a welt left behind from a spanking. Nonetheless, because of the voluntary nature and minor seriousness of the harm, it is not immoral.

Why is your standard better?

[barney_rubble]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

So you think that eventually all states will allow it? Thanks for validating our fears of a slippery-slope. In time, your side will continue to wear down society, and in time morals will continue to slip. That doesn't mean we should just punt now and say "anything goes".

Slippery slope reasoning is a logical fallacy unless you can explain a) why the process leading to the first step will by necessity lead to further steps and b) why preventing the first step will prevent further steps.

My reasoning on this issue is fairly simple. We grant various rights and privileges to legally married couples. If there is a legitimate reason to grant these rights and privileges to heterosexual couples, I can't understand why the same reasoning wouldn't also justify treating homosexual couples in the same fashion.

The concept of "marriage" also has various religious and moral implications. These areas are not under the purview of government and as a result government-sanctioned civil unions should not carry any religious or moral weight.

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

A. It is immoral.
B. We all endorse things daily by our actions or what we say.

At least by your standard, right? Why is that system better?


Why is your standard better?

Calvinist, how is it immoral?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Calvinist, how is it immoral?

I have to tell you how homosexual behavior is immoral? Really?