You see, this is the problem that folks have when they make the “how does it affect your life” argument. There are plenty of arguments against homosexual unions which are simple and pure common sense, as well. There are also arguments against it for religious, medical, legal and moral reasons.
Marrying someone of the same sex doesn’t make any sense either, and the age of consent is an arbitrary number. It has been lower in the past.
Nope. I think their illegality is just, as is the illegality of homosexual unions in most states. There are secular reasons against homosexuality, as well.
Yes. We have made consent a reasonable requirement. Similarly, requiring that the two people be of opposite sex is a reasonable requirement.
Firstly, you need to give a reason for why it doesn’t make sense to marry someone of the same sex. What is the argument? Secondly, the age of consent is not arbitrary, but neither is it set in stone. The underlying reasoning behind age of consent relates to maturity, and there is disagreement on the facts of maturity. You will therefore have some differences between cultures. More and better science and moral philosophy will help illuminate the proper age of consent.Marrying someone of the same sex doesn’t make any sense either, and the age of consent is an arbitrary number. It has been lower in the past.
I don’t see that as a reasonable requirement. You need to make a case for why it is reasonable. Informed consent is reasonable on the very basic requirements of freedom.
It’s called Biology 101. You might want to check it out.
Point being what? If you are referring to procreation, I would remind you of the fact that the institution of marriage, as a secular contract under the law, does not require procreation. So, unless you want procreation to be a general requirement for marriage, you cannot exclude couples from marriage for not meeting a non-existing requirement.It’s called Biology 101. You might want to check it out.
I knew it was a bad idea for public schools to take over sex education. They obviously aren’t teaching the basics…
Point being that biological complementarity is essential to marriage. Without it, marriage has no meaning.
Why should biological complementarity be essential to secular marriage? Same-sex couples, just like opposite-sex couples, can be bestowed with certain secular rights and benefits through marriage. That is their secular meaning, and that secular meaning can be taken advantage of regardless of sex. So, it seems like your claim is false on its face. You are confusing religious marriage with secular marriage. Homosexuals have a claim on the latter, but not necessarily on the former.
Ultimately this is one of the things this is about. The purpose of marriage as originally and traditionally defined for millenia, Biblically, Societally and Morally, has now been “restated” to include a purely secular “definition” that supposedly either “supersedes” or is supposed to “complement” the traditional definition. and “that’s the way it is. Shut up and accept it.” Guess what? we will not.
You are using faulty logic. Marriage exists because of its procreative aspect. The fact that a given couple is not required to procreate doesn’t change the basis of marriage as an societal institution.
Nonsense. From a secular meaning, marriage has included procreation. You are twisting history to support you personal viewpoint. You can argue that you would like it changed so people can live in immoral unions, but it is a new view of marriage.
Not even close. Rather, you are confusing biological nature with societal artifice, confusing biological essence with social construct, confusing biological truth with subversion of biology, confusing biological reality with pseudo-biological artificiality.
With regard to this and your comment below, the knife cuts both ways. Medical evidence for possible bad effects of homosexuality is weak at best, and generally people who make arguments on moral reasoning tend to be promoting religious agendas as well I’ve yet to meet anyone who opposes gay marriage who **isn’t **religious,
I’ll come clean now in admitting I’m trans gay myself. So can you tell me WHY in the name of everything that is sacred that I am currently denied the same rights as every other British citizen? Because of an accident of birth, I am currently denied EQUALITY of rights (I’m not wanting special privileges) under British law. This sort of logic in the past was used against blacks and women, and it’s a dangerous slope to be on,
Medical evidence of possible bad effects is not required. What is the medical evidence of bad effects for bestiality? Regarding morality, I understand that without faith, morality is relative. That is the problem with secularist arguments. When everything is relative, you can justify any activity. Example: just because most people don’t believe that murdering someone for personal game is wrong, doesn’t mean it is immoral. An individual could argue “survival of the fittest” to justify murdering someone who is in the way of their personal ascent.
You aren’t denied equality of rights. Any man (of age, not closely related) can marry any woman. You are either a man or a woman aren’t you? No one is allowed to marry anyone they love - there are rules. Race was a wrong criteria, and I’m glad it was corrected. It has nothing to do with the differences between the gender. You are asking for a special privilege - a change to the basic definition of marriage.
Officially recognizing homosexual unions hurts the institution and meaning of marriage and will therefore hurt society in the long run.
I didn’t say that consent is the only requirement. And who is saying that adultery is morally right? Of course adultery is bad, and harm relationships and society. That doesn’t mean that it should be illegal. In any case, you would have to point to how homosexuality harms relationships and society.
Yes, so drug abuse and addiction are moral dilemmas. You have certain moral concerns in conflict. Freedom is the major positive concern, and harm to yourself and the community are the major negative concerns. It is similar with smoking and alcohol addiction. So, we have to weigh those concerns and do something called moral reasoning. And we can look at the facts of drug abuse and addiction. Is criminalization actually effective in combating the issue? Are there fundamental differences between drugs that should be reflected in law? And so on and so forth.
Historically, marriage has offered a stable environment for procreation, companionship and romantic love. Certainly that is true, and still is. But, even if the institution of marriage offers a stable environment for procreation, it doesn’t require that marriage be utilized in this manner. That is a fact. Also, even though homosexuals cannot procreate by themselves, they are able to 1) adopt or 2) acquire assistance to do so. So, a homosexual marriage can contribute to sustaining our species just like heterosexual marriage.
Look, as point of fact, humans have certain drives. One of those drives is procreation. And of course marriage is an institution made in part to organize that drive. But the fact that some people cannot or will not procreate as part of their marriage, doesn’t exclude them from the union. No changes needed in that respect, since the law doesn’t require that a marriage is procreative.
What biological essence? What biological truth? Is marriage a biological construct? Clearly not, so what are you talking about?
You aren’t getting it, and I’m guessing it is because you prefer to throw out common sense in favor of your particular desires. Marriage is not a “biological construct,” but it is certainly related to biological reality, as you acknowledged in the bolded segment above.
They’re demanding tolerance of their views, but do not think that they have to tolerate the views of Christians. That’s a fact, unfortunately.
The worthwhile benefit is that homosexual couples get the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. The fact that they cannot produce offspring naturally is not important, and your attempt to lump them in with siblings is unfair. I understand what you are trying to say. You are implying that since siblings also could have children through artificial means and adoption, just like homosexuals, we should allow them to get married by the same logic. But this is not the only concern when discussing who should get married, and love between siblings is often a symptom of significant psychological issues and dysfunctional family structures. For that reason, and for the issues with inbreeding, society has good reason to discourage those relationships. The same cannot be said for homosexuals.
I would be convinced, but you would have to make an argument to convince people. And as I said, there is no evidence that homosexual marriage harms society. We have several countries with homosexual marriage, and nothing bad has happened as a result. If you could point out how homosexual marriage has been, or will be, harmful in those societies, we could have a rational discussion about that. As of now, you have simply stated it without any evidence or reason. Not good enough.