How do they "harm" anybody's marriage other than their own? The first question of a "true conservative" is, if we are going to make laws against something, where is the direct victim? And "society" isn't even close to "direct"...
But same sex marriage would destroy the institution
- Thread starter Socrtease
- Start date
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Maybe it was all going on behind your back?
I never noticed it then, so they must have been very small indeed.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It is the responsibility of those advocating a change from the status quo to provide evidence that their proposal will first do no harm.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Fucking classic.
No, it isn't. When the government oversteps their legitimate purpose by ignoring the constitution and creating a new power for themselves limiting freedoms by using powers not specifically given to them, it is our duty to recognize the error and support the Constitution over the error, especially any "TRUE CONSERVATIVE" would recognize this particular duty, it is only the religious radical who doesn't. It should be particularly attended to by anybody who has made an oath to support and defend that constitution.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
There have been studies upon studies showing gays make good parents, contribute to society in the same way straights do, and more. In fact, the article you linked shows they are more honest about their relationships than many, many straights are.
SR_
Junior Member
Winter,
It seems odd the way you keep framing your questions. Whats odd about it is that what youre asking, by definition, is the answer.
Its like asking how would the color green be affected if yellow and blue got together? Well.. obviously, thats how you get green.
If society at large loses its ability to distinguish between what is moral and what is not, then the harm is in the same fact. By promoting the acceptance of promiscuous behavior, you change the dynamic of what was seen as immoral as now being acceptable and "normal".. thus "moral". This is harmful to any moral code as things that society once treasured as being sacred and good, now lose more and more of its meaning.
That is a bad thing. Challenging the merits of morality is always healthy, it always keeps our sense of right and wrong in check. However challenging the merits of what is moral and right through the examination of what others do wrong isnt really a defensible position. Thats the whole.."I stole because, everyone else is doing it".. thats not a defensible position to argue from.
For example.. right now we have laws and over-reaching sense of morality when it comes to adults sexually abusing children. Would you stand up and ask "what harm does it do to you if Jimbo molests his OWN daughter?"... "How is it any of your business if Frank molests his OWN daughter?".. "You know kids are having sex at younger ages now, theyre growing up faster.. how does it affect you if a man wants to have sex with a 12 yr old.. probably 10 of her friends are already having sex."
Do you see how the way these questions are framed and argued entirely misses the point?
kinda sounds a lot like "If my wife and I decide to have an open marriage, how can that possibly effect you and your wife? How is society harmed?"
Good to go?
SR
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
State constitutions have been sanctioning marriage for a long time. The federal government isn't involved here.
Banning homosexual marriages to prevent or prohibit open marriages or promiscuity is not justified. Such a ban would invalidate many committed homosexual relationships and would do nothing to stop many promiscuous and open marriages among heterosexual. Even if we assume the state has a valid interest in preventing open marriages (and that's a HUGE assumption) laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional because they fail to advance that interests in a meaningful way. They punish many homosexuals who are innocent of a promiscuous relationship and fail to punish heterosexuals who are guilty of a promiscuous relationship.
Of course, southernman is far too stupid to understand why, but the courts are highly unlikely to use such flawed arguments. It would be like a law advocating the arrest of all Catholic priests in order to prevent child molestation. Not all priests are guilty of such crimes and many people who are not priests are guilty of such crimes.
Of course, southernman is far too stupid to understand why, but the courts are highly unlikely to use such flawed arguments. It would be like a law advocating the arrest of all Catholic priests in order to prevent child molestation. Not all priests are guilty of such crimes and many people who are not priests are guilty of such crimes.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
There is nothing odd about what I am asking. SM made a claim, and I am asking for an explanation, which he has been unable to provide. He made the claim that it would harm society. I asked him to explain how it would harm society. The answer is not in the question, and your analogy is goofy.
And the answer to the question of molesting children can be answered quite clearly. There is obvious harm to the children.
If we are going to define the morality of society based on a single (or even a limited number of) religious beliefs, then we need to amend the US Constitution.
Morality is not an issue on this topic, unless you wish to quote the bible or quran. And since sodomy is not illegal, banning gay marriage based on it is ridiculous.
Besides, until straight marriages are held to the same standards, it is bigotry.
Last edited:
State governments are limited by the 1st Amendment, there is no justification that isn't trumped by religious freedoms without a direct and apparent victim to limit a religious institution through state government.
It is a personal right guaranteed by the constitution, therefore states' and federal governments have overstepped constitutional boundaries to inflict all people against their 1st Amendment right with the mores of the majority religion.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'm not arguing religion but morality. You and others have argued that morality is independent of religion.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The federal gov't recognizes these marriages and gives them numerous benefits. To do the same for gay marriages would be simple, and would not effect straight marriages.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Indeed we have. Which is why we refuse to accept a definition of morality that comes strictly from a very few religious beliefs.
Where have I argued that? I'd like you to link up any statement from me that says that.
1. The morality proscribed by the majority religion is the only morality you are recognizing in your argument.
2. Morality from other religions or from secularity does not necessarily believe that "open marriage" is immoral.
3. Proscribing through government that people follow the mores of the majority religion is against specific individual freedoms outlined in the constitution.
4. I have taken oaths to support and protect that constitution, I'll continue to do that.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You are arguing morality? You wish to deny equality based on your morals? Kinda hard to do that after you admit being a liar in another thread.
So you are claiming your morality is flexible enough to allow you to be immoral when money is at stake?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, I'm not arguing religion but morality. Society requires morality in order to succeed.
Again,
You only argue the morality that matches that of the majority religion while ignoring that of other religions or from secularity.
It is flatly unconstitutional to force others to follow the morality attached to the majority religion. That you try to say, "I'm only arguing morality!" then suggest that everybody should be forced to follow the morality provided from the dogma of your religion doesn't change the reality, you want to force all people, against specifically protected freedoms, to follow your specific dogmatic "morality"... This makes you a religious radical rather than a conservative.
I'll note that you were unable to find a post of mine that suggested that morality was irreligious.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Post 436 argues that morality is irreligious.
The Christian Bible doesn't state that a man must only have one wife, yet society does. In this case society's morals supersedes Christianity.