Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[RedFox0456]

I would categorize the catholic position as obstinate

Is there any argument that would persuade you that gay marriage is acceptable?

If the answer is “no” then you are obstinate.

**stubbornly **refusing to change one’s opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

That is only true if you are not actually willing to consider the merit of the arguments. You left out “stubbornly” from your case. You can’t argue that a person is simply being stubborn - and therefore a bigot - if he has come to a logical conclusion about an opposing idea.

Stubborn: 1.unreasonably determined: unreasonably and obstructively determined to persevere or prevail

For instance, if I wanted to buy a brand new car while my wife and I were broke, she could logically say that it’s not a good idea. I would be stubborn to pursue getting a new car in spite of the logic that it would put us into debt. By your misinterpretation of the term bigoted, my wife would be a bigot if she remained steadfast that getting a new vehicle would be fiscally irresponsible.

It would also be bigoted of me to never change my opinion that genocide is wrong, in spite of the Nazi propaganda against the Jewish people and their reasons for why they should be killed. By your definition of bigot, we should all get on board with genocide.

The point here is - you can’t leave out key items from a definition and then try to use the rest to make your point. Amazing how this actually ends up serving the point a few people have made; just like with the term “bigot,” by altering or removing key elements of marriage, you really end up twisting the entire thing into something completely different.

*Edited to include the definition of stubborn for reference.

 

[RedFox0456]

Why does “dismissing it” necessarily entail it was done “outright.” Perhaps a judgement only came after a great deal of thought and by deep conviction. That is far from prejudiced, which means to “pre” judge or judge without adequate consideration.

Again, the presumption that your position is the correct one is showing.

Well said.

 

[josh987654321]

In many places such laws are in place.

And people use them to good effect to sue.

And win.

Sarah x

True.

So am I discriminating against homosexuals by saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[atheistgirl]

True.

So am I discriminating against homosexuals **by saying **that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

By saying … no, I don’t think you are.

It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.

Sarah x

 

[josh987654321]

By saying … no, I don’t think you are.

It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.

Sarah x

Thank you.

How about not only saying, but legally defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[atheistgirl]

Thank you.

How about not only saying, but legally defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?

I prefer something like a legally sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond

Society has an interest in marriage.

Marriage has to be a benefit to society, which is why the usual red herrings of brothers marrying sisters and fathers marrying daughters that are usually dragged out at this point are just that, red herrings.

These unions will not be sanctioned in law because they are of no benefit to society and may cause harm.

However, to prohibit same sex marriage, it would need to be shown that same sex marriage has no benefit to society and secondly, that it harms society.

This can’t be done because same sex marriage is a great good for society and does no harm.

There is a good secular argument against same sex marriage here.

And an excellent response to the points made here and here (scroll down)

I will say again, I would never support any faith being forced to perform a sacramental marriage against it’s beliefs (and it wouldn’t be a sacramental marriage in that case anyhow) but neither do I support any faith getting to determine or legally define what wider society can and can not accept or do.

This is why I look forward to the day homosexual couples will enjoy full equality, in all areas under the law, all over the world and we will look back on these discussions and wonder what all the fuss was about

Sarah x

 

[Publisher]

I prefer something like a legally sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond

Society has an interest in marriage.

Marriage has to be a benefit to society, which is why the usual red herrings of brothers marrying sisters and fathers marrying daughters that are usually dragged out at this point are just that, red herrings.

These unions will not be sanctioned in law because they are of no benefit to society and may cause harm.

However, to prohibit same sex marriage, it would need to be shown that same sex marriage has no benefit to society and secondly, that it harms society.

This can’t be done because same sex marriage is a great good for society and does no harm.

There is a good secular argument against same sex marriage here.

And an excellent response to the points made here and here (scroll down)

I will say again, I would never support any faith being forced to perform a sacramental marriage against it’s beliefs (and it wouldn’t be a sacramental marriage in that case anyhow) but neither do I support any faith getting to determine or legally define what wider society can and can not accept or do.

This is why I look forward to the day homosexual couples will enjoy full equality, in all areas under the law, all over the world and we will look back on these discussions and wonder what all the fuss was about

Sarah x

 

[josh987654321]

I prefer something like a legally sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond

Society has an interest in marriage.

Marriage has to be a benefit to society, which is why the usual red herrings of brothers marrying sisters and fathers marrying daughters that are usually dragged out at this point are just that, red herrings.

These unions will not be sanctioned in law because they are of no benefit to society and may cause harm.

However, to prohibit same sex marriage, it would need to be shown that same sex marriage has no benefit to society and secondly, that it harms society.

This can’t be done because same sex marriage is a great good for society and does no harm.

There is a good secular argument against same sex marriage here.

And an excellent response to the points made here and here (scroll down)

I will say again, I would never support any faith being forced to perform a sacramental marriage against it’s beliefs (and it wouldn’t be a sacramental marriage in that case anyhow) but neither do I support any faith getting to determine or legally define what wider society can and can not accept or do.

This is why I look forward to the day homosexual couples will enjoy full equality, in all areas under the law, all over the world and we will look back on these discussions and wonder what all the fuss was about

Sarah x

I’m still reading the links you provided me with, I will reply shortly, please don’t go anywhere

There are quite a few sub premises

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

There is a good secular argument against same sex marriage here.

And an excellent response to the points made here and here (scroll down)

Thank you for those links Sarah, I enjoyed reading them.

Firstly, Id like to talk about Betty Stoneman’s response (I’m pretty sure that’s the author who responds to Adam Kolasinski in the link you provided).

I would also like to add that I’m going to avoid commenting on adoption as much as possible because I believe there is not a “one size fits all” and I simply don’t know enough about that side of things to comment.

Betty say’s “Procreation is not the only way marriages could serve a state interest. It would be incredibly beneficial for states to allow homosexual marriages which result in more adoptions.” She also say’s “So, why is it better for children to be adopted by homosexual couples than to remain within the foster care system? because the children are no longer being passed around from foster home to foster home…”

In this case, would it be better to adopt out to single parents than remain with the foster care system? where do they draw the line on when it’s better to be adopted out than remain with the foster care system? supply and demand? are we trying to increase demand by reducing the “price” so to speak in order to meet the supply? and if so, how cheap would/should the price become?

Betty counters this argument herself in a similar way I would and doesn’t clarify or offer anything else, so why she used it idk.

She say’s “One could argue homosexuals do not have to be married to adopt because many states allow single parent adoption, some also allow partners to adopt via second parent adoption.”

Adam raises the question *“What is the logical basis of marriage if it is not procreation.” *and Betty also say’s *“This is a good question.” *however she goes on about diversity saying “Society benefits from diversity, diversity of genes, diversity of intellect, and diversity of personalities.” … I don’t know what to say to this … I’m not sure what she is saying with this either?

Some people love their neighbours, others hate their neighbours, is this diversity good for society? there are many dysfunctional and abusive families that I could give dozens of examples, is this diversity good for society? what is she implying by saying “Diversity is good for society”?

Anyway, I wont go on much about that because I don’t know exactly what she is implying or saying with that, but to go back to Adam’s question. “What is the logical basis for marriage if it is not procreation.”

I diasgree with Adam along with Betty, but not for the same reasons, I believe they both missed the point and Adam missed it simply because he tried to make a “Secular” argument.

In other words, I would say “What is the logical basis of marriage?” … this is the question that I believe needs to be asked.

And quite simply to answer this question.

I believe God created us male and female (as for evolution, I don’t believe we evolved from nothing) and as Genesis states.

I believe Jesus perfectly affirmed what a marriage was in these two passages -
Gospels:

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”**

To me this makes absolute and perfect sense and I don’t know how marriage could be viewed any other way.

Thus why I also agree with Betty when she say’s “I would disagree states should have procreation as the logical basis for recognising a marriage.”

However she than goes further and say’s “Rcognising a marriage should meet two conditions 1. It should have the potential to be a benefit to society and 2. it should not have the potential to be a deteriment to society.” … Did she think this through? because if that’s the case, than we should not recognise heterosexual couples as marriages as we currently do, because they absolutely do have the potential to be a detriment to society. With her scenario, about the only unions you can recognise as marriages are homosexual ones and infertile ones.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

She also Critiques her own argument, (very honestly I might add) and contradicts all of her other arguments, she also mentions the argument I will pose at the end of this in which she say’s she doesn’t have a good response.

She than goes on to the “Bias fallacy” in which I would add, the simple fact that she doesn’t believe in God is a bias point of view too, so she is guilty of the very same thing she accuses Adam of.

She also mentions the Fallacy in her own arguments (very honestly) in which, I am left with little to refute that she hasn’t already succesfully done for me, so what am I to take away from her argument?

I prefer something like a legally sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond

Society has an interest in marriage.

Marriage has to be a benefit to society, which is why the usual red herrings of brothers marrying sisters and fathers marrying daughters that are usually dragged out at this point are just that, red herrings.

Could you please explain to me why they are red herrings?

These unions will not be sanctioned in law because they are of no benefit to society and may cause harm.

Didn’t betty say that one of the benefits to society with SSM was weddings?

She say’s *“Weddings are just big parties so the more the merrier.” *good for the economy.

And when you say cause harm, I could use the same example being sterile unions.

What about two brothers or two sisters?

However, to prohibit same sex marriage, it would need to be shown that same sex marriage has no benefit to society and secondly, that it harms society.

Or couldn’t it be shown that it’s not a marriage?

This can’t be done because same sex marriage is a great good for society and does no harm.

But Same sex marriage doesn’t legalise or criminalise a homosexual union, nor would we be trying to criminalize it, the question is, is it a marriage? in which you would have to say “What is a marriage?” in which I believe I answered above under “What is the logical basis for marriage?”

I will say again, I would never support any faith being forced to perform a sacramental marriage against it’s beliefs (and it wouldn’t be a sacramental marriage in that case anyhow)

Thank you

but neither do I support any faith getting to determine or legally define what wider society can and can not accept or do.

So whose morals become the law of the land? If you remove God from the picture, why do you have the right to deem what is moral over say Hitler?

This is why I look forward to the day homosexual couples will enjoy full equality, in all areas under the law, all over the world and we will look back on these discussions and wonder what all the fuss was about

Sarah x

So I would like to ask again, is legally defining marriage as only between a man and a woman discrimination?

So as I said in my previous posts, Same sex marriage advocates always seem to refer to it as ‘equal marriage’ and that to be against same sex civil marriage is discrimination (or whatever term they use). However if we are discriminating or against ‘marriage equality’ by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we don’t have the right to ‘force’ … as they say, our definition of marriage being between a man and a woman onto them, than what right do they have to force their definition of marriage being between two people onto those who think it should be between more than two people? and thus the slippery slope begins.

So I believe that either they advocate the legalisation of every union that someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage or they themselves are also discriminating and are against ‘marriage equality’ also. Thus opening the door to many others and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I however believe marriage doesn’t mean anything, however I do believe people want marriage to mean anything when the truth doesn’t suit them.

Anyway, I apologise for the length of this reponse Sarah, please don’t take offense as I mean none in it and please feel free to reply/refute any of it.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

I would also like to add, when it comes to homosexual couples having their own children whether it be IVF or surrogacy, do you think it is right, to intentional bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father when it is not done to benefit the child?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

I will say again, I would never support any faith being forced to perform a sacramental marriage against it’s beliefs

I fully believe that, and imagine that you would be at the front of the line picketing any organization that proposed that we must be coerced into performing a homosexual wedding in our sacred spaces.

 

[RedFox0456]

However, to prohibit same sex marriage, it would need to be shown that same sex marriage has no benefit to society and secondly, that it harms society.

This can’t be done because same sex marriage is a great good for society and does no harm.

You claim to have an interest in logic and yet you make an erroneous assumption to skip to your conclusion.

“Moses supposes his toes are roses, but everyone knows that toes aren’t roses, so Moses supposes erroneously.”

When a logical breakdown of how the redefinition of marriage winds up reducing the entire concept to nothing (unless you discriminate against other people - so where do you draw the line?), your response was that we live in a democracy.

So, you never refuted this claim. So let’s look at how the already minor breakdown of marriage (I’m not talking about same sex marriage here, just the devaluing of the institution in general) has affected society.

Let’s look at the assumption that marriage need not be considered a serious commitment first - something that society has embraced. This has led to incredibly high divorce rates. Now we can look at the effects of divorce (since it is one of the effects of the breakdown of marriage) and see the harm done to society.

Studies in the early 1980’s showed that children in repeat divorces earned lower grades and their peers rated them as less pleasant to be around. (Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage –Harvard University Press 1981)

Compared to children from homes disrupted by death, children from divorced homes have more psychological problems. (Robert E. Emery, Marriage, Divorce and Children’s Adjustment” Sage Publications, 1988)

A study of children six years after a parental marriage breakup revealed that even after all that time, these children tended to be “lonely, unhappy, anxious and insecure. (Wallerstein “The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1991)

Just to name a few problems that have arisen. I will not compile a comprehensive list because there is absolutely no reason to. It is clear that devaluing marriage has had harmful effects on society.

Once again, since it can be logically concluded that altering the definition of marriage to allow for same sex unions leads to the logical conclusion that marriage is devalued further, one can conclude that there are potentially harmful effects on society.

So one of your assumptions is actually not so solid and therefore should not be taken as a given in your argument.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There were a lot of posts, so some points.

Yes, there are things I am obstinate about. I have no problem admitting that. I am obstinately against child rape.

Providing services for homosexuals and homosexual marriages does not mean you are being forced into a gay marriage. You are “forced” to provide services to remarried divorced people (sinful as well.) Yet I don’t see people getting upset about it. Or taking an obstinate position.

A working definition for Civil Marriage: A contract between two adults that forms a family bond and the rights that conveys, where there was no prior family bond existed. Usually stemming from a romantic coupling.

Being an adoptee through Catholic Charities, I sometimes find these discussions about “valid” marriages and “valid” families, wonders into places that sometimes presents a biological nuclear family as the only iteration that is “valid”. There are other “valid” families in the world. Mine was put together though a Catholic organization.

 

[PRmerger]

There were a lot of posts, so some points.

Yes, there are things I am obstinate about. I have no problem admitting that. I am obstinately against child rape.

Excellent.

So you reserve for yourself what you deny to Catholics? You can be obstinate, and it’s not bigotry against those who engage in child rape, but Catholics are being obstinate and bigoted against those who engage in homosexual unions?

Is that your paradigm, Roscoe?

 

[PRmerger]

Being an adoptee through Catholic Charities, I sometimes find these discussions about “valid” marriages and “valid” families, wonders into places that sometimes presents a biological nuclear family as the only iteration that is “valid”. There are other “valid” families in the world. Mine was put together though a Catholic organization.

I haven’t seen any discussion about what is a “valid” family. Valid marriage? Yes. But valid family, no.

However, in the entire history of society, there is no better way to raise a child than in a loving home with a mommy and a daddy. Period. No. Better. Way.

This is incontrovertible.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Excellent.

So you reserve for yourself what you deny to Catholics? You can be obstinate, and it’s not bigotry against those who engage in child rape, but Catholics are being obstinate and bigoted against those who engage in homosexual unions?

Is that your paradigm, Roscoe?

I have pointed this out but to reiterate, Child rape (all forms of rape) has one person that is being acted upon against their will.

In a gay marriage the two involved are willing participants. There is no party that needs advocacy as there is in the case of rape, child or otherwise.

Gay marriage doesn’t prevent other forms of marriage nor does it cause current marriages to dissolve. The “immorality” of homosexuality is between two people involved. They are not asking to be “saved” from the act.

This is not the case with rape, or slavery or the other examples that have been toted out.

You can be obstinate without being bigoted. I think the Catholic position on abortion fits this description. It’s an unwavering position of advocacy.

 

[RedFox0456]

Yes, there are things I am obstinate about. I have no problem admitting that. I am obstinately against child rape.

You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Obstinate

1.stubborn: determined not to agree with other people’s wishes or accept their suggestions

Stubborn

1.**unreasonably **determined: **unreasonably **and obstructively determined to persevere or prevail

For you to be obstinate you would have to be stubborn, ie being unreasonable. Since it is not unreasonable to say that child rape is wrong, you are not actually being obstinate about it.

Obstinate is not just the refusal to change your opinion. It is the unreasonable refusal to do so. Since I have provided this definition already and you are unreasonably refusing to accept that your definition is flawed, I can state that you are indeed being obstinate about this particular point.
Roscoe Turner:

A working definition for Civil Marriage: A contract between two adults that forms a family bond and the rights that conveys, where there was no prior family bond existed. Usually stemming from a romantic coupling.

A few things. If this is a legal contract then please define for me “family bond.” Are there penalties for breaking the “family bond?” “Usually stemming from a romantic coupling.” Using the term “usually” means that a romantic coupling is not necessary prior to or during the civil marriage. While I’m okay with prior to, as my wife and I waited, the problem is that it opens more doors. Now you have people who care for each other, but not romantically, who are to marry. So by your definition, two close friends can marry just for the sake of getting financial benefits (unless you can explain how a close relationship disqualifies from being a family bond). This has reduced the meaning of marriage considerably. Completely altered it, in fact.

Being an adoptee through Catholic Charities, I sometimes find these discussions about “valid” marriages and “valid” families, wonders into places that sometimes presents a biological nuclear family as the only iteration that is “valid”. There are other “valid” families in the world. Mine was put together though a Catholic organization.

By saying one situation outside of the Catholic definition of marriage is “invalid” is not to say all situations are “invalid.” For instance. Some bottles are blue does not mean all bottles are blue. To say that not all bottles are green is not to say that all bottles are not green. I’m not exactly sure where you were going with your argument here, but it seemed more like you were playing on emotion than on logic. Nobody has said there are no other “valid” families in the world.

 

[ffg]

The “immorality” of homosexuality is between two people involved.

If only this were the case.

How many parents are having to teach their very young children about this “immorality” because those that want to be immoral in this subject are very loud about it.

 

[RedFox0456]

I have pointed this out but to reiterate, Child rape (all forms of rape) has one person that is being acted upon against their will.

In a gay marriage the two involved are willing participants. There is no party that needs advocacy as there is in the case of rape, child or otherwise.

Gay marriage doesn’t prevent other forms of marriage nor does it cause current marriages to dissolve. The “immorality” of homosexuality is between two people involved. They are not asking to be “saved” from the act.

This is not the case with rape, or slavery or the other examples that have been toted out.

You can be obstinate without being bigoted. I think the Catholic position on abortion fits this description. It’s an unwavering position of advocacy.

There are two willing participants when a drug deal happens, and yet the state has made those illegal.

Just because people are willing participants doesn’t mean the relationship qualifies as a marriage. You have not made your case for qualification. You’ve only pointed out that “nobody’s being forced into the relationship.” That’s great, you’ve pointed out why it shouldn’t be illegal. Nobody has said it should be. What we have asked is for you to explain in what way the relationship meets the requirements for a marriage. The best that you have done is attempt to redefine marriage to encompass the situation, but as I stated, it has led to a logical breakdown of the institution.