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.
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it. That's just the way it is.
I think using religion to defend discriminatory practices is immoral. Looks like we're at an impass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
You may disagree--that's fine. I won't scream and call you names, I request the same courtesy from you.
I think we've all been pretty courteous in discussing reasonings, facts, and the allowance of discriminatory practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Having said that, I think traditionally marriage as a precursor to procreation and the family unit is a very good thing.
I do agree that a stable household family unit is a very good environment to raise a child in. What better way to create more stable family units than to recognize and protect all of them?
Quote:
I don't know that declaring that anything can be called marriage or anything is a family unit is going to really accomplish the same thing.
Numerous studies have shown that children raised in same-sex households are the exact same as their peers from opposite-sex househoulds. Seeing as how same-gendered couplings are more likely to adopt children than bear their own, that means that less children are in the adoption/foster system and more are in stable households.
Quote:
Again...that's just the way I feel on it. I haven't seen anything to persuade me differently.
If anything, knowing that giving rights, protections, and benefits to families (many with children) means that more children will grow up in stable loving households like your own - that should make you happy, right?
The fact that you admit discriminatory practices are involved regarding other types of stable relationships (whether or not you find them immoral) is at least a step in the right direction.
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it. That's just the way it is. You may disagree--that's fine. I won't scream and call you names, I request the same courtesy from you.
Having said that, I think traditionally marriage as a precursor to procreation and the family unit is a very good thing. I don't know that declaring that anything can be called marriage or anything is a family unit is going to really accomplish the same thing. Again...that's just the way I feel on it. I haven't seen anything to persuade me differently.
That's fine. Your morality is your business and you are welcome to it. However, infringing on the rights of *others* based on YOUR morality is wrong. Before we start going down the "marriage is not a right" path, yet again, go read the SCOTUS decision on Loving v. Virginia.
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it. That's just the way it is. You may disagree--that's fine. I won't scream and call you names, I request the same courtesy from you.
Having said that, I think traditionally marriage as a precursor to procreation and the family unit is a very good thing. I don't know that declaring that anything can be called marriage or anything is a family unit is going to really accomplish the same thing. Again...that's just the way I feel on it. I haven't seen anything to persuade me differently.
I'll repeat what I said.
Is there a valid reason to not allow such marriages to pass outside of religion?
Appeal to tradition=/=valid reason.
You have yet to respond to this without using religious convictions and appeal to tradition.
Anything that comes from a straight family unit can come from a homosexual family unit, close relation (parent-wise) family unit, or multiple spouse family unit.
Morality is relative, and different for every person, therefore irrelevant.
So, do you have any logical case against disallowing such marriages to pass, that do not involve morality or use of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy?
That's fine. Your morality is your business and you are welcome to it. However, infringing on the rights of *others* based on YOUR morality is wrong. Before we start going down the "marriage is not a right" path, yet again, go read the SCOTUS decision on Loving v. Virginia.
That sure sounds like you're making a moral judgment on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
I'll repeat what I said.
Is there a valid reason to not allow such marriages to pass outside of religion?
Appeal to tradition=/=valid reason.
You have yet to respond to this without using religious convictions and appeal to tradition.
Anything that comes from a straight family unit can come from a homosexual family unit, close relation (parent-wise) family unit, or multiple spouse family unit.
Morality is relative, and different for every person, therefore irrelevant.
So, do you have any logical case against disallowing such marriages to pass, that do not involve morality or use of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy?
As I said, I think it's better for government to promote strong marriages, not weaken them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
I think using religion to defend discriminatory practices is immoral. Looks like we're at an impass.
I think we've all been pretty courteous in discussing reasonings, facts, and the allowance of discriminatory practices.
You have been, and I thank you. My convictions are not based on hate and I appreciate your courtesy.
I don't know that we're going to solve anything. You have your morals and I have mine. So be it.
Is there a valid reason to do away with the time-tested, proven institution of marriage to go with that? I'm not aware of any. You might argue that the divorce rate indicates it's broken. Ok...I would agree. If anything, though, that suggest that we need to do more to strengthen it--not water it down. Marriage is a good thing for the stability of society.
And a 14 year old not being able to get a driver's license while a 16 year old is age discrimination. But everyone has to deal with it.
Please explain how allowing gay marriage is doing away with the institution of marriage.
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it. That's just the way it is. You may disagree--that's fine. I won't scream and call you names, I request the same courtesy from you.
Having said that, I think traditionally marriage as a precursor to procreation and the family unit is a very good thing. I don't know that declaring that anything can be called marriage or anything is a family unit is going to really accomplish the same thing. Again...that's just the way I feel on it. I haven't seen anything to persuade me differently.
Nobody is forcing you, or anybody else to participate in gay marriage.
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it.
My upbringing taught me not to engage in activism against what is someone else's business. Whether they are being moral in their choices shouldn't be my issue to take and run with. I simply expected to adhere to my own morals, in my own life. After all, I don't want others imposing their morals on me. Do you?
That sure sounds like you're making a moral judgment on me...
In what way did I judge you with that post?
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.
