Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:46:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Are you pro or anti gay marriage?
#1
Pro Gay Marriage
 
#2
Anti Gay Marriage
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 136

Author Topic: Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?  (Read 17171 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« on: August 10, 2012, 07:59:31 PM »

I'm not a bigot, so I'm in favor of gay marriage.

EDIT: LOL at realisticidealist's fake outrage over "people feeling superior about themselves."

You pretty much just proved my point. Thanks.

Give me one non-religious reason for not supporting gay marriage.

Did I say I was against it? I did not; my comment was at its supporters, not at its merits. There are non-religious reasons for not supporting it, but there aren't any particularly good non-religious reasons.

Both sides feel superior to the other side on this issue. The difference is, those for gay marriage use logic and appeals to the concept of equal rights to defend their position, while those against use religious texts (which, you know, are Constitutionally prohibited from being injected into U.S. law)  and appeals to "moral values" that nobody actually ever had.
There are plenty of people on both sides who don't feel superior to people on the other side.  Both sides use appeals to moral values - otherwise, it wouldn't arise so much passion. The Constitution doesn't prohibit anyone from arguing for a position based on their religion. There are secular arguments against gay marriage, it's just that these types of secular arguments are made in terms of tradition, natural law and other things that aren't highly respected in late modernity. Very few 18th century rationalists could have dreamed that gay marriage would be a rational position, for instance.

Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2012, 07:55:20 PM »

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?
So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2012, 11:12:06 PM »

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.
So if someone disagrees with you then they don't know how to think for yourself?

At this point people who say that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry aren't saying anything, because they are just redefining bigotry to be synonymous with opposition to gay marriage.  It doesn't describe motivation or provide a logical argument.  It's lazy, and if you think you are convincing anyone of anything by throwing the term around, you are kidding yourself.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2012, 05:14:44 AM »

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.
Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage.  I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman.  For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue.  Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."
Then don't allow civil marriage in general and make marriage solely religious. Either everyone is allowed to get a civil marriage or no one is.

Why? Is civil marriage only valuable as an institution insofar as it can be used to signify nondiscrimination?   Is civil marriage not valuable in itself?   Maybe you can see why traditionalists see this sort of thinking as a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

I support gay marriage, but it is precisely because I believe marriage is a valuable institution and want more people to have the opportunity to enter into it. If you don't believe that, what's the point?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 13 queries.