Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?

Mariage is unnatural, people should have several sexual partners over a lifetime and education should be handled by profesionals.

Hence, gay mariage is wrong

I am all for Gay Marriage.

Originally posted by Bentley
Mariage is unnatural, people should have several sexual partners over a lifetime and education should be handled by profesionals.

Hence, gay mariage is wrong
So nobody should be married?

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So nobody should be married?

Oh people can marry, but it's still wrong.

Originally posted by Bentley
Oh people can marry, but it's still wrong.
So you believe all marriage Is wrong. Sir I would like to shake your hand

I've never seen any good arguments for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. People attempting to create good arguments against it would be quite amusing to see.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
I've never seen any good arguments for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. People attempting to create good arguments against it would be quite amusing to see.
They always use religion which I believe is invalid

Indeed.

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?





Gay "Marriage" (part 1 of 2)

(Thomas Sowell)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?

(CONTINUED)






Gay "Marriage" (Part 2)

(Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/page/full/

I'm technically against all marriage as a legal construct. Anything that isn't needed should be expendable, and that certainly includes federal and state definitions of marriage.

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?

You can, but it's up for interpretation as to whether or not the justification is valid.

It's also rare to see. Some who are against gay marriage use non-religious arguments to make their claim. But the root of their position is in the religion. The other arguments wouldn't exist if it weren't first established by their beliefs.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman.

There is no gay marriage to ban.

Here you go, homeschooler

History of same-sex unions <---clicky

Amerians doing it: "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance,"

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type <---clicky

You're welcome

Originally posted by Digi
Some who are against gay marriage use non-religious arguments to make their claim. But the root of their position is in the religion. The other arguments wouldn't exist if it weren't first established by their beliefs.



Digi,

If you're referring to Thomas Sowell, please explain how you are NOT using the following logical fallacy, given that the content of what Sowell wrote above makes no mention whatsoever of religion or religious beliefs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Digi,

If you're referring to Thomas Sowell...

I'm not.

Rob and Digi should just go ahead and get married.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Rob and Digi should just go ahead and get married.

You can be our flower-gurl

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Digi,

If you're referring to Thomas Sowell ...



Originally posted by Digi
I'm not.


Thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here you go ...

History of same-sex unions <---clicky

Amerians doing it: "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance,"

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type <---clicky

You're welcome

It's telling that even the writers of Wikipedia do not refer to what you're presenting by the term "marriage" in most cases, rather as "unions" or "relationships".

An interesting article, written by some PhD ...

Please note that I do NOT agree with all of this.

In point of fact, I come to nearly the OPPOSITE of some of his conclusions.

Nevertheless, I am presenting this because he makes some interesting points for future discussion.


Also, it saves typing time.


http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's telling that even the writers of Wikipedia do not refer to what you're presenting by the term "marriage" in most cases, rather as "unions" or "relationships".

It's telling that you were homeschooled since you don't know that a "marriage" is a union and a relationship, homeschooler.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's telling that you were homeschooled since you don't know that a "marriage" is a union and a relationship, homeschooler.


So are business partnerships, if we're being that fast and loose with terms.

Right now, you're illustrating how powerful a tool the changing of names and definitions can be. It's rather fascinating, really.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
So are business partnerships, if we're being that fast and loose with terms.

Right now, you're illustrating how powerful a tool the changing of names and definitions can be. It's rather fascinating, really.

Who is changing the definition? A marriage is both a union and relationship by definition. See people, the horrors of homeschooling right there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is changing the definition? A marriage is both a union and relationship by definition. See people, the horrors of homeschooling right there.

Marriage has multiple definitions, as we both know.

You're using the fallacy of equivocation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation



You know, at the very least, you should be kind enough to post the fallacy you're
using as a matter of course.

That way, debate and philosophy students can learn something from reading your messages, and you won't simply be wasting your time and mine.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Marriage has multiple definitions, as we both know.

You're using the fallacy of equivocation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation



You know, at the very least, you should be kind enough to post the fallacy you're
using as a matter of course.

That way, debate and philosophy students can learn something from reading your messages, and you won't simply be wasting your time and mine.

Stop falsely accusing people of fallacies as some means to save yourself, it's rather sad and weak.

A marriage is a union and a relationship of people, which is what I'm referring too here, homeschooler. At no point did I bring up marriage in any other form, you did though with your silly "business relationships" rant, which was little more than a red herring. Homeschoolers be homeschooled.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm technically against all marriage as a legal construct.

High five.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop falsely accusing people of fallacies as some means to save yourself, it's rather sad and weak.



1. You're not being falsely accused, rather quite rightly so. It might be that you don't KNOW that you're using fallacies in the way you've been approaching me, but all that means is that they were not deliberate, and you've not been formally exposed to them. Most people haven't. It was a long time before I myself knew what many of them were, so I understand if this is the case for you.

2. I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think there is that I should be saving myself from? Name-calling perhaps? Laughing icons?
Those come to virtually anyone who posts on an Internet forum, let alone KMC.


Originally posted by Robtard

A marriage is a union and a relationship of people, which is what I'm referring too here, homeschooler. At no point did I bring up marriage in any other form, you did though with your silly "business relationships" rant, which was little more than a red herring.


If marriage, in your mind, or at least in the minds of "gay marriage" proponents, was equal to civil unions, or tribal members living with one another, you wouldn't be having this discussion with me.

For they, and you (presuming your point of view is actually representative of theirs), would already have what they say they're going for.

No, you are dealing instead with matters of law and the consequences of specific terminologies. Where marriage and the other relationships you present are NOT the same thing.

And Thomas Sowell outlined very well in that article I presented why things are not currently the way you would like them to be on the previous page.

Without using religion as the basis for any of that, by the way.

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?


Unlike the Thomas Sowell article, which I think is fairly well-written, I cannot be at all sure that what is communicated in the following yet is even the true stance of the person in question. If it is, however, this makes for an intriguing commentary:


http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-change

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1. You're not being falsely accused, rather quite rightly so. It might be that you don't KNOW that you're using fallacies in the way you've been approaching me, but all that means is that they were not deliberate, and you've not been formally exposed to them. Most people haven't. It was a long time before I myself knew what many of them were, so I understand if this is the case for you.

2. I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think there is that I should be saving myself from? Name-calling perhaps? Laughing icons?
Those come to virtually anyone who posts on an Internet forum, let alone KMC.





If marriage, in your mind, or at least in the minds of "gay marriage" proponents, was equal to civil unions, or tribal members living with one another, you wouldn't be having this discussion with me.

For they, and you (presuming your point of view is actually representative of theirs), would already have what they say they're going for.

No, you are dealing instead with matters of law and the consequences of specific terminologies. Where marriage and the other relationships you present are NOT the same thing.

And Thomas Sowell outlined very well in that article I presented why things are not currently the way you would like them to be on the previous page.

Without using religion as the basis for any of that, by the way.

-You're now accusing me of your own shortcomings

-Now you're just blindly crying because your homeschooled brain can't cope

We're not really having a discussion, you posted some nonsense someone else wrote, I helped you out with links and you didn't like it

Marriage is marriage and it's not really "gay marriage", it's marriage equality. eg having the right to marry the consenting adult of your choosing, regardless of your sexuality

That Sowell article is just as ridiculous today as it was the last time you posted it. Did you think polishing the same turd would net you something else? You did, didn't you, homeschooler. The man is GOP goon; his clownish "bicycles and cars" analogy is little more than the ridiculous "gays have the same rights to marriage as I do, they can legally marry someone of the opposite sex if they want" argument

So no, you're telling homosexual people they in fact can't drive their car on the highway, because it's a gay car and the highway is heterosexual

ps why do you hate homosexuals so much?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm technically against all marriage as a legal construct. Anything that isn't needed should be expendable, and that certainly includes federal and state definitions of marriage.



You can, but it's up for interpretation as to whether or not the justification is valid.

It's also rare to see. Some who are against gay marriage use non-religious arguments to make their claim. But the root of their position is in the religion. The other arguments wouldn't exist if it weren't first established by their beliefs. I'm also against all marriage as a legal construct.

I don't really care how consenting adults choose to call their relationship and I don't think anyone else should either.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

In the United States, marriage is an individual right, not a right granted to a couple.

This means that the government cannot apply marriage laws differently to individuals on the basis of sex.

In other words, if the government allows men to marry women, it must also allow women to marry women, and vice versa.

It has zero to do with any kind of "actions."




Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other --

The government does no such thing. People are free to marry and never consummate their relationship or to pursue any number of extramarital arrangements without government oversight or interference.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.





Originally posted by Adam_PoE

The government does no such thing. People are free to marry and never consummate their relationship or to pursue any number of extramarital arrangements without government oversight or interference.


Tell this to any man who's lost an alimony suit.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Tell this to any man who's lost an alimony suit.

Alimony is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to his or her spouse before or after marital separation or divorce.

It has nothing to do with fidelity.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Alimony is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to his or her spouse before or after marital separation or divorce.

It has nothing to do with fidelity.






Did you actually read the Thomas Sowell article?

Or are you just trying to see if I did?

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm also against all marriage as a legal construct.

I don't really care how consenting adults choose to call their relationship and I don't think anyone else should either.

Phuck language?

Originally posted by Robtard
You can be our flower-gurl

Sorry I forgot you ass says "Quanchi was here."

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sorry I forgot you ass says "Quanchi was here."
Ohhhh dayuuuuuuuuuuuum!!!!!!!

Originally posted by bluewaterrider



Did you actually read the Thomas Sowell article?

Or are you just trying to see if I did?

Why don't you say what it is you have to say instead of asking rhetorical questions?

Really? He didn't even spell "your" correctly in his outburst.

That's just as bad as stuttering when telling a joke.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
That's just as bad as stuttering when telling a joke.
It's not funny unless you are bobby Boucher

Touche.

Originally posted by Bentley
Phuck language? sure

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why don't you say what it is you have to say instead of asking rhetorical questions?

The question wasn't rhetorical.

I want to know how you can read that article, where the man goes through pains to explain that law is intended to govern the consequences of normal marriage, and forms a binding contract, prove-able by the fact that the courts (i.e. the government) enforce that contract when it is defaulted, through devices like alimony, and think you're telling me something that somehow counters Sowell's proposition.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why don't you say what it is you have to say ... ?

Now that I come to it again, here's one article that addresses some other questions and issues I have on the thread topic;
I think you'll be just a little surprised at who wrote it, given what they had to say:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical: Column

Nicholas A. Cummings 6:14 p.m. EDT July 30, 2013

Southern Poverty Law Center wrongly fighting against patients' right to choose.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has done amazing service for our nation in fighting prejudice. But it has gone astray in its recent New Jersey lawsuit charging JONAH, formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, a group that offers to help gay people change their orientation, with committing consumer fraud. The sweeping allegation that such treatment must be a fraud because homosexual orientation can't be changed is damaging. The lawsuit is the opening salvo of a wave of activism intended to discredit therapy offered in 70 clinics across 20 states, according to the SPLC.

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco's gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.



INDIVIDUAL's GOALS

They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

I believe that our rate of success with reorientation was relatively high because we were selective in recommending therapeutic change efforts only to those who identified themselves as highly motivated and were clinically assessed as having a high probability of success.



PATIENTS OVER POLITICS

Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don't believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.

Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That's why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as "unethical" violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients' goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn't prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.

Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Cummings was PRESIDENT of the American Psychological Association (1979-80).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

Originally posted by |King Joker|
That's just as bad as stuttering when telling a joke.

It's worse than terrorism

To go along with that article, here's a clip featuring an actual interview with Cummings.

For the record, I am not the creator of this video, and do not think if I had made such a thing that I would have titled it the way the creator did.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NyX5CxGraE

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The question wasn't rhetorical.

I want to know how you can read that article, where the man goes through pains to explain that law is intended to govern the consequences of normal marriage, and forms a binding contract, prove-able by the fact that the courts (i.e. the government) enforce that contract when it is defaulted, through devices like alimony, and think you're telling me something that somehow counters Sowell's proposition.

Because he is wrong. I'm sorry you find his argument so compelling that you cannot accept that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Now that I come to it again, here's one article that addresses some other questions and issues I have on the thread topic;
I think you'll be just a little surprised at who wrote it, given what they had to say:

So what? Who cares? I don't even need to address the merits of it because it's not the least bit relevant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? Who cares? I don't even need to address the merits of it because it's not the least bit relevant.

Even you don't believe that much; you wouldn't have been responding in this thread to begin with if you did.

And I can say with confidence that many will find it interesting that the former president of the APA, the very man who campaigned to have homosexuality removed as a mental illness from the Psych books, thinks that homosexuality versus heterosexuality IS a choice for many people, including patients he personally worked with over the course of years.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because he is wrong. I'm sorry you find his argument so compelling that you cannot accept that.
You've probably already come to the conclusion, but being wrong is no form or matter sways Bluewhaleguy from continuing his ramblings.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've probably already come to the conclusion, but being wrong is no form or matter sways Bluewhaleguy from continuing his ramblings.


Prove "Bluewhaleguy" is wrong about this and we can test your theory.

See?

Originally posted by Robtard
Really? He didn't even spell "your" correctly in his outburst.

Clearly you mad

Its simple. People should be equal and all have the same rights. Idk why its even a question. Its not someone else business what anyone else does. I may not enjoy watching Homosexuals kiss and the like but hey I have the ability to look away. If two guys or two girls want to have a marriage then there isn't ANY reason as to why they shouldn't.

Religiously speaking it doesn't matter if your god says its wrong. Those two obviously don't care so leave them alone.

Non Religiously speaking....there shouldn't even be an argument. I guess you could argue that gays disrupt the natural process of populating our species but thats a really weak argument of its own.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Even you don't believe that much; you wouldn't have been responding in this thread to begin with if you did.

Motivations are irrelevant. I only care about arguments.




Originally posted by bluewaterrider
And I can say with confidence that many will find it interesting that the former president of the APA, the very man who campaigned to have homosexuality removed as a mental illness from the Psych books, thinks that homosexuality versus heterosexuality IS a choice for many people, including patients he personally worked with over the course of years.

Again, so what? Whether or not homosexuality is an immutable characteristic is totally irrelevant to the equal application of the law.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Its not someone else business what anyone else does.


Assuming this premise is true, why exactly do we have a government?


Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I may not enjoy watching Homosexuals kiss ...




Why do you not enjoy this?


Originally posted by BlackZero30x
If two guys or two girls want to have a marriage then there isn't ANY reason as to why they shouldn't.


If that's true, why has this been a national discussion for more than 10 years?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Assuming this premise is true, why exactly do we have a government? What? Is this really a question or are you joking? We are free to do as we wish as long as we don't hurt or infringe upon another persons freedom. I thought that went without saying considering the context.




Originally posted by bluewaterrider


Why do you not enjoy this?

I mean thats not the point I was making but okay....
The short answer is im a heterosexual male thats not interested in men. That would be why I don't find it enjoyable. As for why I don't want to watch two guys kiss...well im not entirely sure, I just don't. Why do some people not like to look at feet?




Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If that's true, why has this been a national discussion for more than 10 years?

Obviously because the people arguing that it shouldn't happen are ignorant. One reason is religion and thats the dumbest reason to not allow a marriage. As I said if your god doesn't want same sex marriage then those two people don't care, apparently. Leave them alone. If its not a religious reason then you are basically making a case to not allow another human(s) do something that has nothing to do with you. Its not hurting other people and its none of their business.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
What? Is this really a question or are you joking? We are free to do as we wish as long as we don't hurt or infringe upon another persons freedom. I thought that went without saying considering the context.


That was really a question.
No, I was not joking.
I do not agree that we are free to do as we wish.
However, what you mean by this phrase might differ from what I would use that phrase to mean.

And I presented 2 pages ago, the view of a man who ALSO disagrees that we are free to do as we wish, let alone where an institution like marriage is concerned.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I presented 2 pages ago, the view of a man who ALSO disagrees that we are free to do as we wish ...

Sorry -- that article by Thomas Sowell was presented 3 pages ago as of now ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I do not agree that we are free to do as we wish.
https://secure.static.tumblr.com/d179d99853a0869d36cef4bd3d63ee79/h0blbr7/EBgnh2onm/tumblr_static_9xgovowedwgk8kss480wg4w8g_640_v2.gif

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That was really a question.
No, I was not joking.
I do not agree that we are free to do as we wish.
However, what you mean by this phrase might differ from what I would use that phrase to mean.

And I presented 2 pages ago, the view of a man who ALSO disagrees that we are free to do as we wish, let alone where an institution like marriage is concerned.

by "free to do as we wish" I mean we can do whatever we want as long as we don't infringe upon another persons rights/freedoms and/or harm other people.

As for the article you posted about the man who doesn't think we are free to do as we wish in regards to marriage....well hes wrong. Its fine that he has that opinion but its wrong.

For example I am a human just as you are. Our beliefs, sexual preferences, skin color...ect doesn't change that. As living sentient beings we all are equal. None are less and none are more. There isn't a reason that anyone should be able to impede on another humans rights if its not hurting anyone else. This is hurting nobody. It is however making people who want to do it happy. It is simply ignorant to think people should be denied rights simply because other people think they shouldn't be allowed to have those rights.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
There isn't a reason that anyone should be able to impede on another humans rights if its not hurting anyone else. This is hurting nobody.

There are also muddied areas such as euthanasia where the problem is more about the potential harm than the actual harm.

Originally posted by Bentley
There are also muddied areas such as euthanasia where the problem is more about the potential harm than the actual harm.

Personally I am pro Euthanasia. I mean there has to be a structure with a certain set of rules for it but that is another debate altogether I guess lol

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Personally I am pro Euthanasia. I mean there has to be a structure with a certain set of rules for it but that is another debate altogether I guess lol

Indeed!

It was a nitpick, there are things wrong because they cause actual harm and then are those judged on their potential harm. For example, taboos such as incest and pedophilia are mostly censured because their potential harm and difficult to properly assess their effects a priori. Euthanasia was a more mainstream example.

Gay marriage is awesome.