How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
This is a great example of sloppy reasoning. Can you show why, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, society is logically committed to allowing rape marriages?
Click to expand...
You can call it sloppy reasoning yet you seem to avoid providing your reasoning by not answering a simple question.
Stephen168 said:
if same sex marriage, why not pedophile marriages or incest marriages?
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase the question:
I have given you my definition of marriage and it excludes same sex unions and pedophile unions. What is your definition of marriage that would include same sex unions but exclude pedophile unions?
Also a number of times you have claimed there are many purposes for marriage yet when I asked you about them in post 112, you did not answer that question either.
You claim to have reason on your side, so answering these two simple questions should be easy.
 
Stephen168 said:
I wasn’t making an argument, I was asking you a question. As it has it has already been shown; marriage is for the creation and rearing children. Same sex, and pedophile unions are not marriages because they are sterile by design. While incest marriages have a good chance of producing defective children. So again if same sex marriage, why not pedophile marriages or incest marriages?
Click to expand...
No. That is transparently incorrect and it indicates you’re not seriously considering the opposing position.

Pedophile marriage would never be allowed because marriage requires consent and the legal consequence of being a minor is fundamentally an inability to give consent. We could also think about marriage as a contract, which minors are not legally bound by.

Incest is outlawed specifically because it is may harm any children produced due to the increased risk of genetic disorders. Having no prohibitions against incest is not actually uncommon, it is legal in several countries, such as France, Brazil, and Israel.
 
vera_dicere said:
I think we need to stop that emotional sob story nonsense in its tracks.

People with SSA can vote, they can speak their mind, they can study and work where they please - as long as they have the grades and qualifications, they can live where they want - as long as they meet that country’s immigration laws et al, they can buy and sell, they can vote, if they are beaten or murder, their assliant is treated just like any other assliant or murderer - heck, in some places they get in more trouble if its found they committed their crime because of the SSA of the victim and so on and so fourth.
Click to expand...
Do they have the free exercise of religion if they are not allowed to be married in a religion sympathetic to gay marriage?

“Wait!” you will cry, “They CAN get married in their own religions, but the state shouldn’t recognize their marriage!”

I reply: then hasn’t the state, in deciding which religious marriages are valid, violated the establishment clause? Are they not establishing certain religions’ arrangements as legally protected, while excluding others?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
No. That is transparently incorrect and it indicates you’re not seriously considering the opposing position.

Pedophile marriage would never be allowed because marriage requires consent and the legal consequence of being a minor is fundamentally an inability to give consent. We could also think about marriage as a contract, which minors are not legally bound by.

Incest is outlawed specifically because it is may harm any children produced due to the increased risk of genetic disorders. Having no prohibitions against incest is not actually uncommon, it is legal in several countries, such as France, Brazil, and Israel.
Click to expand...
I haven’t considered the opposing position because I don’t know the opposing position. The purpose of my question was to discover the opposing position.

I’m sure there were people making your claim about same sex marriage 50 years ago (It is wrong because it is illegal and illegal because it is wrong.). Just change the law like homosexuals have successfully lobbied for in a few states. You have not provided a moral reasoned argument or definition which would include same sex unions but exclude pedophile unions.
 
Stephen168 said:
I haven’t considered the opposing position because I don’t know the opposing position. The purpose of my question was to discover the opposing position.

I’m sure there were people making your claim about same sex marriage 50 years ago (It is wrong because it is illegal and illegal because it is wrong.). Just change the law like homosexuals have successfully lobbied for in a few states. You have not provided a moral reasoned argument or definition which would include same sex unions but exclude pedophile unions.
Click to expand...
As I am formulating a position, I constantly check to see if I could easily dispute that position myself. If I (an admittedly sympathetic audience) can find a hole, an intellectual opponent would also find that hole. Moreover, I wouldn’t want to waste people’s time defending a position that I couldn’t even defend against myself. I think that is what Chesterton meant with his line:
“What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.”
You don’t have to know your opponents position to see how they might attack your own position.

We are not talking about morality, Catholicism has already given the final word on that. We are talking about legality which I have clearly explained.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
As **I **am formulating a position, **I **constantly check to see if **I **could easily dispute that position myself. If **I **(an admittedly sympathetic audience) can find a hole, an intellectual opponent would also find that hole. Moreover, **I **wouldn’t want to waste people’s time defending a position that **I **couldn’t even defend against myself. **I **think that is what Chesterton meant with his line:
“What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.”
You don’t have to know your opponents position to see how they might attack your own position.

We are not talking about morality, Catholicism has already given the final word on that. **We **are talking about legality which **I **have clearly explained.
Click to expand...
True,

In the context of the discussion I see this…I understand your position and how you get there. Define “we”…who is “we”…

Thank you…🙂
 
CopticChristian said:
True,

In the context of the discussion I see this…I understand your position and how you get there. Define “we”…who is “we”…

Thank you…🙂
Click to expand...
It should be everyone in the thread. After all, the article was about how the author changed his mind on the legality of gay marriage, not the morality.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
It should be everyone in the thread. After all, the article was about how the author changed his mind on the legality of gay marriage, not the morality.
Click to expand...
True,

So you believe you speak for the consensus of what people want to discuss. I agree the posting is about “How my view on Gary Marriage Changed”…however posting is for or against and since this is Catholic answers why do you place a limit on the discussion to legality…were you placed in charge of where the discussion goes?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Do they have the free exercise of religion if they are not allowed to be married in a religion sympathetic to gay marriage?

“Wait!” you will cry, “They CAN get married in their own religions, but the state shouldn’t recognize their marriage!”

I reply: then hasn’t the state, in deciding which religious marriages are valid, violated the establishment clause? Are they not establishing certain religions’ arrangements as legally protected, while excluding others?
Click to expand...
Good point. If some religions do recognize same-sex marriages, then it could be considered a violation of the establishment clause if the state denied that religious practice.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
As I am formulating a position, I constantly check to see if I could easily dispute that position myself. If I (an admittedly sympathetic audience) can find a hole, an intellectual opponent would also find that hole. Moreover, I wouldn’t want to waste people’s time defending a position that I couldn’t even defend against myself. I think that is what Chesterton meant with his line:
“What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.”
You don’t have to know your opponents position to see how they might attack your own position.

We are not talking about morality, Catholicism has already given the final word on that. We are talking about legality which I have clearly explained.
Click to expand...
So your position is: The King is always right, even an irrational King.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
No. That is transparently incorrect and it indicates you’re not seriously considering the opposing position.

Pedophile marriage would never be allowed because marriage requires consent and the legal consequence of being a minor is fundamentally an inability to give consent. We could also think about marriage as a contract, which minors are not legally bound by.
Click to expand...
And how consent is defined in the law cannot be changed? It has in the past and can be in the future.
Incest is outlawed specifically because it is may harm any children produced due to the increased risk of genetic disorders. Having no prohibitions against incest is not actually uncommon, it is legal in several countries, such as France, Brazil, and Israel.
Click to expand...
So proscriptions regarding incest can easily be reversed.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=3

This article is by David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values and had, until recently, been active in campaigning against gay marriage.
Click to expand...
It took courage and integrity for Blankenhorn to submit that for publication. I wonder how many conservative publications would also have the courage and integrity to publish it?

The Gay Marriage Debate devolves eventually into a pack of barking dogs chasing their own tails, with nobody listening. Once the arguments have been heard, repeating them ad nauseum is a waste of everyone’s time.

Unless something dramatic happens in the courts, which could happen with our kooky US Supreme Court, the gay marriage debate is over. It s just mopping up the details now, things like finishing off DOMA, etc… The challenges which will accompany the implementation of repealing DADT should take care of the final steps to invalidate DOMA.

Blankenhorn appears to me to have finally come to ths sensible conclusion, and to stop hitting his bloody head against a wall over and over. The wall doesn’t care. It is good to see him turn to the question of, what can he do which is positive, given a set of circumstances which he may not agree with, but which he is powerless to change.
 
spencelo said:
Stephen,

Blankenhorn hasn’t changed his mind about certain matters, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t changed his mind about whether or not he’s in favor of SSM. He now clearly is.
Click to expand...
The salient point of the discussion is: What is marriage and on that point he claims he has not changed his mind. What he seems to have have changed his mind on is continuing to rally against the government’s attend to redefine marriage and try to make the best of a the situation.
 
fix said:
Yes and morality and the law are separate. We see how that has worked out many times in the past.
Click to expand...
True, and because they do not have morality and reason on their side, their only hope is an irrational King. Their fellow citizens have collectively not accepted their irrational and immoral position.
 
Stephen168 said:
True, and because they do not have morality and reason on their side, their only hope is an irrational King. Their fellow citizens have collectively not accepted their irrational and immoral position.
Click to expand...
Well said Steven, Bravo…👍

Lulu
 
Stephen168 said:
True, and because they do not have morality and reason on their side, their only hope is an irrational King. Their fellow citizens have collectively not accepted their irrational and immoral position.
Click to expand...
Yes the people do not want it. It gets imposed by credentialed misfits, political hacks, and activist judges. The usual suspects.
 
Stephen168 said:
True, and because they do not have morality and reason on their side, their only hope is an irrational King. Their fellow citizens have collectively not accepted their irrational and immoral position.
Click to expand...
I thought the tide turned on public opinion some years back. Polls show tat the majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Without abortions and marriage equality to discuss, there would be little to distinguish the two political parties. I sometimes wonder if that is not part of the motivation for keeping these issues in the press constantly. This may explain some of the fervor of the debate.
 
**We have all been raised in a culture with a worldview based on the doctrine of demons collectively known as Liberalism with its various cousins such as Modernism, Feminism, Individualism, Americanism, and Secular Humanism.

As such we are all contaminated by that influence and must work hard to remove those philosophic influences and presumptions from ourselves whenever and wherever we find them. Our ability to recognize and identify the subtleties of Satan’s snares depends upon this.**

Lulu
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top