Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jon had some good arguments, and then some that are tired at this point. I won't go into all of them. I tend to like him a lot when he's serious, though.
I actually have to say that I disagree with him on the "pro-life movement." I really don't understand that, either. Surely, I can come closer to understanding it, but I think it comes down to the same principle--claiming that you have a moral code you will live by and then wanting to force others to live by it, also.
Anyway, it's difficult to comment on, because whenever I see someone like Huckabee, I have a hard time being rational.
I do like Jon's point about how people are protected on the basis of religion, because gay people certainly should be if that is the case (which it is). It doesn't really matter if one is born gay or not (I personally don't believe anyone is born gay or straight), no one is born with a religion either, yet we recognize that people can be denied civil rights based on religion, so offer necessary protections. Those who claim that GLBTQ people want "special rights" should consider that. It would be a sad day if people were not allowed to follow religions of their choice without fear of being fired from their jobs, etc. (And this isn't relevant to the marriage issue, but of course it is still very possible to be fired for being gay these days).
I don't understand it when people carry on about the semantics. Definitions change all the time. When I was younger and I cared about grammar, I thought it was just awful when "anxious" was changed to mean "eager" as well as "tense." Really, it just gave people more reasons to use the word "anxious" and it didn't harm anything. Huckabee thinks it'll destroy our entire "social structure" if same-sex marriage is deemed as such. He never explains how, though. He talks about how essential it is that we reproduce, but at no point does he propose that allowed same-sex marriage will bring opposite-sex marriage (not to mention reproduction) to an end. He says it will lead to polygamy, but he fails to explain 1) how they are really related and 2) what is innately wrong with people practicing polygamy. Thing is, if we have same-sex marriage nation-wide, it benefits lots of people, and it hurts no one. I can't think of a good argument against something that benefits many and hurts no one.
I would say Jon Stewart is not the kind of guy you want to argue with on something like gay marriage if you cling to anti-gay marriage views. Especially if you get your inspiration from your interpretation of the Bible. Being judgmental in denying others rights is always a tough position to argue with someone like Stewart
I would say Jon Stewart is not the kind of guy you want to argue with on something like gay marriage if you cling to anti-gay marriage views. Especially if you get your inspiration from your interpretation of the Bible. Being judgmental in denying others rights is always a tough position to argue with someone like Stewart
In general, I think he is a force to be reckoned with. He's very intelligent. Still, I thought some of his arguments and comebacks are some of the same that I've seen used here, some that aren't too difficult to discount. For instance, when you bring up Britney and Kevin and compare them to a stable same-sex couple, you're really not being fair. It's too easy for the opposing side to point that out, too. Still, Stewart had some great points and Huckabee's arguments were weaker.
I think it comes down to the same principle--claiming that you have a moral code you will live by and then wanting to force others to live by it, also.
Everyone in this country does that every day. We claim that murder is wrong so we outlaw it and prosecute it. If a lot of people thought murder was okay, would that mean it was no longer immoral to commit murder?
Saying that you can't use the Bible to argue for our current definition of marriage just strikes me as strange. To say that the Bible allowed for polygamy is true. God talks about a lot of different sins and choices we make that don't really help us. And yes, polygamy was common in the OT, but if you read those accounts carefully and study the Bible you will see that those in polygamous marriages had many more problems. It is the 1 man/ 1 woman marriage that the Bible highlights as being most stable. That is probably partly why Paul told us to only marry 1 person.
That said, while I choose to only sleep with guys (I'm Female) that is my choice, just as it is my friends' choices to sleep with someone of the same gender. I believe our sexual preference is just that, a chosen preference due to life circumstances not gender. I also believe that if people chose to live that way, that is their choice and I still want to be their friend. What you do in the "bedroom" is just one aspect of who you are, as is your: faith, book genre preference, etc.
Even as a Christian (and we sometimes get a bad rap) I still want to know, why can't we just move on from this and focus on more important issues and just let people live? We are complex people, and this issue shouldn't be what divides us. We have bigger problems that need our attention.
Everyone in this country does that every day. We claim that murder is wrong so we outlaw it and prosecute it. If a lot of people thought murder was okay, would that mean it was no longer immoral to commit murder?
Murder is a crime with an unwilling participant.
Gay marriage would be a consensual relationship between two people of majority status that causes no harm to anyone, least of all society and its values.
Society is not falling apart now due to gay couples living together, nor would that change with a legal document recorded in the public record.
I think they should pass a law that preachers have to pass the collection plate after the sermon rather than before, and another one that gives gays the right to approve or disapprove heterosexual marriages.
Everyone in this country does that every day. We claim that murder is wrong so we outlaw it and prosecute it. If a lot of people thought murder was okay, would that mean it was no longer immoral to commit murder?
I think what it comes down to is what is good for the society. We do enforce morality, but we do it when it's for the good of all. If we allowed homicide to be legal, it wouldn't be conducive to maintaining the human race. It wouldn't really mean any kind of order, either. I think that's when start imposing morality--when not doing so is a real detriment to people's functioning in general. That's my take on it, anyway. Maybe someone else can explain that better.
Well, I just looked down there and noticed cuebald's post. We're pretty much saying the same thing, I think. We allow ourselves to impose morality when harm is being done to another person. Sometimes we impose morality when harm is being done to another animal, but that one is more uncertain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really, it just gave people more reasons to use the word "anxious" and it didn't harm anything. Huckabee thinks it'll destroy our entire "social structure" if same-sex marriage is deemed as such. He never explains how, though. He talks about how essential it is that we reproduce, but at no point does he propose that allowed same-sex marriage will bring opposite-sex marriage (not to mention reproduction) to an end. He says it will lead to polygamy, but he fails to explain 1) how they are really related and 2) what is innately wrong with people practicing polygamy. Thing is, if we have same-sex marriage nation-wide, it benefits lots of people, and it hurts no one. I can't think of a good argument against something that benefits many and hurts no one.
