Member Rara Avis
I was trying to show you that your concern about "rights" is a moral one too
You can't, because it isn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality, Stephen. I make no claims as to what is morally right or wrong, and I certainly don't depend on a call to God as an authority. I simply defend my rights and the rights of my children from those whom would wish to restrict them.
If you really feel that we should throw morality out of public life because no one has agreed upon it with unanimity, then we should just as easily throw out your "rights" argument, since no one has ever agreed on just who should have what "rights" either.
Sure we have, Stephen. A bit over two hundred years ago. One of them was a freedom from having your religious views legally imposed on us.
It still would make little difference as to whether the morality is "Christian" or not, as ALL of the major religions of the world are rejecting homosexual marriage as illegitimate.
And several of them, I suspect, would probably make your own marriage illegitimate. At the very least, some would change the definition of it, as you might be forced to share your wife with leaders and family members. Your morality, Stephen, isn't the only one out there.
Well Ron, you're the one making the distinction between what is "right and wrong" and what "works and doesn't work". That distinction is not one that I'm inclined to believe often, if ever, exists.
Stephen, there no "immoral" way to wire a new outlet into your house. The outlet either works or it doesn't work, and in neither case will you go to hell for it. There is a whole world out there that has absolutely nothing to do with your morality.
It wouldn't be in our "long term self interest", for us or our children. If that past can't show us this for certain, it at least has strong suggestions that it "hasn't worked well" before now.
Sure it would, Stephen. Especially if one or more of your children happen to be gay.
As to the past and your dire suggestions, you're still looking at the wrong thing. We're not legalizing homosexuality, Stephen, so any historical reference to homosexuality is irrelevant. We not legalizing debauchery, which is what you're really referencing, so those are out, too. We're talking about marriage. Show me something in history where letting people get married brought about irreparable harm to society and we've got something to talk about again?
Well hate is something you are inferring from my view. I deny it. Resorting to ad hominem slurs has become too common for you lately. If you're not prepared to argue from the Bible, that the Bible doesn't teach that widespread acceptance of homosexuality is both wrong AND bad for society, then why bring it up?
Check again, Stephen. My comment that hate isn't taught in the Bible was in direct response to yours that Geo-centrism wasn't taught in the Bible. I didn't bring up the Bible; you did. Again.
And if there's ANY doubt as to the social results of such a radical, heedless, anti-democratic push to change the fundamental institution of marriage, then I think it's reasonable to oppose it.
Stephen, there is always room for doubt. If nothing was ever done in the face of doubt, nothing would ever be done. Southern states in America were making exactly the same kinds of prediction you are making when faced with the reality of inter-racial marriages. Their doubts were, like yours, without foundation.
So we're just to automatically assume that the precedence of male / female marriage is the result of hate and prejudice, because you say it is?
We're not talking about the precedence of male/female marriage, Stephen. We're talking the acceptance of alternatives to the precedence. And, yea, when those alternatives are denied for no logical reasons, the only reasons remaining are emotional ones.
"I've never had the right to marry 'whom I wish'. It all depends upon what my wishes are doesn't it?"
I thought wishes didn't count?
What you're really saying, of course, is that only your wishes count. You don't want to marry someone of the same gender, so that particular wish doesn't count. If we passed a law permitting men to only marry brunettes, you'd not have a problem with that either so long as your wife was blonde? Unless a restriction makes some logical sense, it shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't exist for some and not others.
But it seems like the only thing you would ever accept as proof of "harm", would be an itemized hospital bill or something like that. I don't accept that convenient and narrow view of harm. Sociological problems don't manifest quite that neatly and quickly. They never have. But they are real nonetheless.
I don't need an itemized hospital bill, Stephen. I do need something a little stronger than, "Because God told me so." Even if I didn't think you weren't listening very closely to Him, I wouldn't agree with any social structure that tried to enforce a moral edict.
There is a healthy fear, the opposite of which may be called recklessness, haste, even blindness.
A healthy fear, Stephen, is one founded in reality. When you're afraid and can't tell anyone what it is you fear, it's rarely healthy.
I can tell a child a thousand times there is nothing in his dark room that is going to hurt him. I can root through his closet five times a night, and the monsters will always return as soon as I leave. He has never been hurt by anything in the dark before, but that doesn't matter, because his fear is not founded in reality, is not rational or even coherent.
I can tell, without any reservation, that letting a few hundred, or a few thousand, or even a few million, people live without the danger of having their lives and choices disrupted by unreasonable barriers is never going to hurt you. But, like the child, you won't believe me until you discover your own truths. Twenty years from now you may be no more accepting of alternatives than you are today, but eventually even you will realize that what doesn't harm you really doesn't harm you and need not be feared just because it's different.