Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[livingwordunity]

Why shouldn’t there be a law against marriages for Jews, Muslims or atheists. It was their choice not to follow Christianity?

Marriage defined as one man and one woman is an institution that predates all religions and goes all the way back in human history to the first man and woman. The human race survived this long because men and women got together and had babies. And marriage is what holds this union together so that children can have a mommy and a daddy. But those who want to redefine marriage to mean two men, two women, two men and one woman, two women and one man, three men and three women, etc. are doing so without considering what is best for the children.

This post (#200)

 

[marymary1975]

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.

But what about the second set of examples I gave you: bribery and drug trafficking? In those the two parties involved are willing participant and there is no party that needs advocacy. What about those? Would you say that keeping drug trafficking as a crime is obstinate?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

As much as I enjoy a “princess bride” reference, I am using the word as intended. I can not be moved from my position by the use of reason.

If none of you are calling for gay marriage not be legalized. I don’t know what we are discussing. If your position it’s immoral but we must live with it civilly, we have reached an amnicable solution.

 

[RedFox0456]

As much as I enjoy a “princess bride” reference, I am using the word as intended. I can not be moved from my position by the use of reason.

If none of you are calling for gay marriage not be legalized. I don’t know what we are discussing. If your position it’s immoral but we must live with it civilly, we have reached an amnicable solution.

You further show your lack of understanding of terms. Something not being grounds for imprisonment or other legal penalty is not the same thing as conferring it benefits. I can go hiking in the forest because it isn’t illegal. The state doesn’t give me benefits for doing it, however.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am libertarian in my veiws of “victimless crimes.”

 

[skigirl1689]

Could be.

I asked for official government policy documents.

I also linked to the Chinese government statements on religious freedom and the an assessment of the reality on the ground.

I acknowledged there were problems.

My post was in direct answer to a particular poster who very clearly did not know what they were talking about.

They claimed China sentenced Christians to death **for no other reason **other than they were a Christian.

They also made silly claims about IMF funding requirements which I refuted.

I also had to demonstrate their claim that all priests were deported or killed in Cuba and all churches were destroyed was also completely false.

If you’re going to jump in and pull me on something, at least be clear about what I said and who I was addressing.

Sarah x

You’re actually derailing your own thread to make a claim that isn’t disputed

I’ve already linked to official sources highlighting the problems on the ground in China.

The other poster claimed China **sentenced people to death **for nothing other than they were Christians.

I asked for official government **policy **documents backing up this claim.

Of course, the poster couldn’t produce any, because they made it up and then went on to make more baseless, misleading and ill informed claims about the IMF and Cuba which I corrected

I can’t believe you’ve actually derailed your own thread for this

RedFox0456 I had a reply for your last post to me, almost complete, however I’m unsubscribing from this thread now as it seems there’s some who are more interested in point scoring than actually discussing the issue.

Perhaps on another thread

Sarah x

You wanted official government policy; I cited it for you. And do you really think any country is going to publicize their policy of persecuting a certain group because of religious affiliation? That’s like thinking North Korea is going to come right out and admit to starving their own people.

 

[RedFox0456]

I am libertarian in my veiws of “victimless crimes.”

Then how are your views on actions that can have societal harm? Since I’d previously posted a logical argument that indicated a reasonable potential for exacerbation of negative societal issues by the redefinition of marriage. Also, you never amended your definition of a civil marriage.

 

[marymary1975]

You wanted official government policy; I cited it for you. And do you really think any country is going to publicize their policy of persecuting a certain group because of religious affiliation? That’s like thinking North Korea is going to come right out and admit to starving their own people.

I don’t appreciate being made out to be foolish by trying to inform a debate.

That was exactly my point, no one who is.committing a harm.is.never going to openly admit that they are doing it.

 

[marymary1975]

I am libertarian in my veiws of “victimless crimes.”

I have to give you credit for at least being consistent in your argument. Now to me my next question to you would be then, let’s imagine for.a minute that victimless crimes would be taken out of criminal law and bribery and drug trafficking not be a criminal offense anymore. Do you think that drug trafficking should be made legal to encourage drug trafficking and.do you think drug dealers shouldbe granted benefits by that states?

 

[ffg]

I am libertarian in my veiws of “victimless crimes.”

“victimless crimes.”

Circle Squares

Both impossible.

Your young victim’s were mentioned above.

Good gay Christians (and I’m sure other religions) trying to live good healthy lives in accordance with the moral and natural law are also your victims.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I have to give you credit for at least being consistent in your argument. Now to me my next question to you would be then, let’s imagine for.a minute that victimless crimes would be taken out of criminal law and bribery and drug trafficking not be a criminal offense anymore. Do you think that drug trafficking should be made legal to encourage drug trafficking and.do you think drug dealers shouldbe granted benefits by that states?

I don’t think bribery is a victimless crime.

As for drug dealers, they already is and they do. Pharmaceutical companies and adult beverage companies.

 

[JimG]

The destruction of marriage is not a victimless crime. All of civilization is a victim.

Of course it is not just gay ‘marriage’ that destroys marriage. That began with contraception, divorce, extramarital sex, cohabitation, and adultery. But there’s no need to keep furthering the destruction. It ought to be reversed. We are all victims when a society disintegrates.

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t think bribery is a victimless crime.

As for drug dealers, they already is and they do. Pharmaceutical companies and adult beverage companies.

Bribery is categorized as a.victimless crimes because both parties are consenting to it. From.a definition.standpoint there is no.difference between bribery and homosexuality as both involve willing parties who are consenting to an.act, and both would be moral issues.

I am not referring to pharmaceutical companies. I am.speaking about drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is a crime heavily enforced at federal.(by the DEA) and stated. My question is If the drug trafficking currently categorized as a crime would be decriminalized, do you think that after that, states should pass laws encouraging drug trafficking and giving benefits to drug dealers i.e. cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD dealers in case I am not being clear. Yes or no?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Bribery is categorized as a.victimless crimes because both parties are consenting to it. From.a definition.standpoint there is no.difference between bribery and homosexuality as both involve willing parties who are consenting to an.act, and both would be moral issues.

I am not referring to pharmaceutical companies. I am.speaking about drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is a crime heavily enforced at federal.(by the DEA) and stated. My question is If the drug trafficking currently categorized as a crime would be decriminalized, do you think that after that, states should pass laws encouraging drug trafficking and giving benefits to drug dealers i.e. cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD dealers in case I am not being clear. Yes or no?

Bribery has other participants. It’s used to gain advantage.

As for drug dealers, look to the alcohol industry. Similar products with similar distribution logicistics.

 

[marymary1975]

Bribery has other participants. It’s used to gain advantage.

As for drug dealers, look to the alcohol industry. Similar products with similar distribution logicistics.

As to bribery, all the participants in bribery are all willingly consenting. What makes a.crime.victimless is not the reason is ( take advantage, irrelevant) what makes it victimless is whether one of the.parties in the crime is not consenting. You said you are libertarian, if you think that bribery should be a crime then you are not being consistent.

Again, that is.not my question. Alcohol is irrelevant because sale.of alcohol is not a crime in the USA. My question is with regard to cocaine,.crack and LSD trafficking. Do you think.that after decriminalization a law should be passing giving benefits to them. It just requires a simple yes or no, Or is it that you don’t.want to answer the question?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

As to bribery, all the participants in bribery are all willingly consenting. What makes a.crime.victimless is not the reason is ( take advantage, irrelevant) what makes it victimless is whether one of the.parties in the crime is not consenting. You said you are libertarian, if you think that bribery should be a crime then you are not being consistent.

Again, that is.not my question. Alcohol is irrelevant because sale.of alcohol is not a crime in the USA. My question is with regard to cocaine,.crack and LSD trafficking. Do you think.that after decriminalization a law should be passing giving benefits to them. It just requires a simple yes or no, Or is it that you don’t.want to answer the question?

Bribery has more than 2 participants. The one bribed the one who bribes to gain an advantage and the victim(s) over whom an advantage was gained. It’s not victimless.

As for drugs I’m not understanding the question. If drugs become decrimilized, I would expect that their business practices whorls be similar to Alchol that used to be criminalized. It would be regulated and taxed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Hiw would this definition NOT exclude two brothers, two sisters, mother-daughter or father-son relationships? They could well have a strong commitment and already exist as a “familial” relationship. Why exclude them from enjoying economic benefits?

It is not clear to me that a society that eschews its crucial and legitimate interest in marriage (the only means by which new native-born citizens are created) is even capable of understanding what is the true “interest” it does have 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.

It is interesting that your “standard” for determining whether these relationships should be sanctioned is that they “may” cause harm, but your standard for same sex marriages are that they actually do. Since we do not know for certain that same sex marriages won’t cause harm, you should apply the same standard that you do to the above forms of marriage to same sex marriages. That is, refrain from advocating for same sex marriage because they “may cause harm.” Or include these others UNTIL it is shown that they actually do cause harm. Double standard going on here.

The above are not mere red herrings, because your redefinition for marriage allows these by definition. You are merely throwing in ad hoc stipulations because you don’t like the consequences of your own definition.

Explain to me how two brothers, two sisters, a mother and daughter, father and son marrying will cause any more harm than the marriage of a same sex couple, given that they are in a committed relationship, familial bonds are already present and they only seek economic benefits?

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.

The problem here is that harm can only be assessed after the fact, so we don’t really know what actual harm may come about. Clearly, a redefinition of marriage to a nebulous “committed familial and economic bond” redefines the purpose or focus of marriage away from a relationship committed to having children who are the vulnerable third parties, (with no voice in the question,) and who are never mentioned by advocates of redefinition.

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

The question of harm is wrapped up in the issue of measuring it. How can anyone adequately measure the complex ramifications that tampering with the very basic social unit of society will bring about. Your claim of “no harm” is, at best, wild speculation and an assurance that means nothing more than “Everything will be fine,” despite the fact that you have absolutely no power to make it so nor credible knowledge that it actually will be.

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

Very diplomatic, but profoundly naive.

 

[marymary1975]

Bribery has more than 2 participants. The one bribed the one who bribes to gain an advantage and the victim(s) over whom an advantage was gained. It’s not victimless.

As for drugs I’m not understanding the question. If drugs become decrimilized, I would expect that their business practices whorls be similar to Alchol that used to be criminalized. It would be regulated and taxed.

No, no, you are not understanding my question. I am not asking if.the.practice should work as alcohol.industry or being (the purpose of the tax in case of tobacco and alcohol.is like a penalty to make.it more expensive so people have difficulty buying it, and the intent behind.it is to discourage the behavior or to make it like, you want it then you pay extra for it). My question is if a law should be passed giving cocaine dealers benefits for entering into the cocaine trafficking business as a way to.encourage the cocaine sale and it’s consumption i.e. if you open a crack cocaine store you get a huge tax break.

 

[marymary1975]

Bribery has more than 2 participants. The one bribed the one who bribes to gain an advantage and the victim(s) over whom an advantage was gained. It’s not victimless.

Legal definition of.bribery: offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. Bribery constitutes a core and both the offer or and the recipient can be criminally charged.

There are only two parties in bribery, offer or and recipient. Offer or is the person that gives, solicits and offer. The recipient receives. From.a.Legal point of view there is no other party to the action.

Legal definition of.party: persons involved either in a transaction or proceeding.

Given that in the transaction of.Bribery there is only one offering party and one receiving party, no there are no more than two parties and both parties have the same intent to the.transaction. If you still insist that I am wrong then go and read United States v. Sun Diamond Growers, 526 US 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402 (1999) and 18 USC section 201

 

[Peter_Plato]

The destruction of marriage is not a victimless crime. All of civilization is a victim.

Of course it is not just gay ‘marriage’ that destroys marriage. That began with contraception, divorce, extramarital sex, cohabitation, and adultery. But there’s no need to keep furthering the destruction. It ought to be reversed. We are all victims when a society disintegrates.

Perhaps the thinking is: “The horse is dead, so what’s the harm?”

This is the problem with holding a “Don’t harm” or negative view of ethics being proposed by people like Roscoe Turner. There is no positive vision concerning where we ought to go, what we ought to do or what the good actually is. They see it as merely, “Avoid doing damage.”

I am not clear that any civilization or functional society can come about or be advanced by a population of individuals whose sole vision of the good is merely a non-negative one.

Don’t do harm can never logically equal Do good, precisely because it neither proposes nor espouses ANY vision of the GOOD.

It is like proposing the paradigm of good health to be: “Don’t get sick.” Throw in the libertarian form and you get, “You are free to do whatever you want but don’t get sick!”

It is, at bottom, an admission that, “We don’t know what the good is, we just know that it shouldn’t hurt.”

You begin to wonder why so many are taken in by such a robust ethical theory.

Very helpful