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.
Now, when it comes to homosexuality, you would have to point to the negative concerns for me, cause I cannot see them. And if there are any, they would have to be very grave indeed if they are to trump the positive concerns of freedom and romantic love.
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.
Now, if people suddenly didn’t want to procreate anymore, we would have a serious problem. But that is hardly the case, is it? Even if gay marriage didn’t contribute with offspring, that would be no more of an issue than infertile couples or couples that do not want children. We do not ban the latter two from the institution of marriage, so we cannot do so with the former. Seriously, what are you afraid of? Do you think homosexual marriage will dramatically lower birth rates? Based on what evidence?
What biological essence? What biological truth? Is marriage a biological construct? Clearly not, so what are you talking about?
Yes, indeed, adultery should not be illegal, from my point of view (others may disagree of course). Neither should homosexual/lesbian acts themsleves. But that is different from actual GAY MARRIAGE, which opens the door, so to speak, or allowing lots of other things through, like polygamy, pedohilia and LGBT marriage.
Intertesting that you seem to have ignored the rest of my post where I enumerated certain reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed.
As to your asking why being against gay marriage trumps “freedom and romantic love,” I would paraphrase Lord Acton:
“Freedom is not doing what we like, it is doing what we ought.”
For centuries, people “in the know” (aided by God and moral law) have defined freedom as MORE than just simply “doing what we like.” They have defined freedom and liberty as basically contributing to the moral good and the virtue of oneself and society.
And also, just to ask:
Are you putting adultery and gay marriage on different planes of wrongness?
If so, why?
They both involve “consenting adults,” yet yet you say adultery IS worng and harmful to society, while gay marriage is not. Again, Why?
Just because gay marriage does not involve deceit and lying (like adultery often does) does NOT mean there is no harm to society. Saying “what harm does it do???” simply because nobody is deceived is not a reason to assent to gay marriage.
Remember, legalizing it would send a message that established societal mores and laws that have been going on for thousands of years are really irrelevant and no longer matter and that that something God decreed is nullified by man-made, man-centered law instituted by people with political axes to grind on BOTH sides. Think about that.
If laws and mores followed for thousands of years that grew out of traditional Judeo-Christian law and thought insitituted by GOD and Christ canbe so easily swept away because "times change"and some people cry “separation of church and state,” what is to stop OTHER laws and prohibitions from being abolished? After all, “Thou shalt no kill,” but we allow it in war and in other circumnstances (some cases of “righteous killings,” for instance). Why not go all the way and expand the deifnition to include OTHER things as well? What’s to stop it? Times change. We are more “sophisticated” now and we see now that there are times when certain things are “justified,” don’t we?
