What are you on about?
All this because I asked a question that nobody seems to be able to answer. Its getting to the point that I have almost forgotten what it was that I asked.
We have some people aserting that same sex marriage is the same as incest ect because they are conscenting adults. Unfortunatly that would also suggest that hetrosexual marriage is the same because they are conscenting adults and that just opens up a whole new can of worms.
Then there are others who state that they are not the same, yet they still treat them as though they are and making comparisons as though they are the same. If they are not the same then dont treat them as if they are.
When it comes down to it, you opposes incest and the like because you believe its wrong and it goes against your morals.
Well guess what, same with me.
You are not opposed to hetrosexual marriage because you do not believe that it is wrong.
Hey, same here.
You oppose homosexuality/homosexual marriage becuase you believe it is wrong and it goes against your morals.
This is where we differ, because I dont believe it is wrong for homosexuals (although it would be wrong for me).
There you go, none of this āconscenting adultsā rubbish that seems to encourage higher levels of sillyness from people of both sides. Just treat them as different issues because that is what they are, it could actually be humanities next step towards enlightenment.
What I am on about is this:
I am not so much against homosexual marriage, as I am for the preservation (and restoration) of marriage as a lifelong sacramental joining of one man and one woman.
If you (or anyone) expects me to accept that, as a society, we are going to redefine marriage, one of the foundational structures of civilization, they need to articulate the reason far more persuasively than āI donāt believe it is wrong.ā
I can see that you are proposing a system that permits marriage structures that in line with your own opinions of what are right and wrong. You also seem to be pretty clear that this is not based on anything more than what is self-evidently right and wrong
to you, right now. These are your beliefs and you are OK with them. You are in my experience, unusual and refreshing in that you are straightforward about this. You cite no consenting adult test, or rights to form pairings at will, or sexual license.
Problem is, thereās no chance of implementing a change that is based on todayās snapshot of everybodyās self-perceived notions of right and wrong. There is too much variance across people and across time. The best youāll do is an arbitrarily selected compromise that will make hardly anybody precisely happy and is likely to fail any philosophical test of justice, because it lacks consistency.
The main way in which incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage are āthe same,ā as you maintain we are asserting, is that they involve a departure from the traditional, almost universally accepted, structure of marriage in our society.
When a change is proposed, it falls upon those who want the change to provide the new rule, to provide a defensible basis in justice for the rule, and to show that rule is likely to result in the changes desired (and also
only those changes that are desired) It is the latter two requirements that cause the āhigher levels of sillinessā you refer to. What we are trying to get to here is that you, if you want to credibly promote homosexual marriage, need to show a consistent, philosophical reason to justify the change, that does not result in supporting the changes you want to keep out.
I liken this to situations I have seen in amateur motorsport. Somebody wants a rule change that makes a popular car more reliable, without making it ineligible for stock class. No real competitive advantage, it just keeps people from blowing up their cars when they want to take them out to the track. Where I come from, they have to propose and write a rule that doesnāt result in unfair advantage and doesnāt result in people having to spend a bunch of money or rendering their car unstreetable to remain competitive. Without this you end up with something like NASCAR, with laughably labeled āstock carsā which, while they provide diverting entertainment for many, are in no way suitable for functioning in the role of fullfilling the mobility requirements of daily living.
I propose we keep marriage āstockā so that it can continue to function in the role of fullfilling the child-rearing requirements of daily living. If somebody proposes that we allow departures from what has been considered āstock,ā I say āshow me the rule.ā
If so, then I agree with you.
