Threading the needle on LGBT issues

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

CBecause I’ve been around long enough to watch the LGBT activist narrative change from “be kind to us because we suffer” to “approve of homosexual acts or we’ll punish you”

What are these lawsuits other than punishments?
And for a person who doesnt agree with homosexual acts, who watches these stories unfold, that really undermines trust–“I thought they only wanted kindness!”

But going back to the original reason for this thread, these kinds of stories make it really hard for a person who is attracted to their own sex, but wants to live a chaste life because they get in the crosshairs. People who hold traditional Christian values have already been lied to (and some have suffered at the hands of) by the LGBT activists and might be wary of a person who identifies as gay, even if they’re chaste.

Which makes a heavier burden (and completely unfair) on the chaste gay person.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And I wanted to add an important point to my previous post. The Supreme Court ruling in 2015 allowing same-sex couples the right to marry did not come out of nowhere. It came after decades of hard work by LGBT people to convince their co-workers, their families, and their neighbors that certain basic rights should be extended to them.

Thor, I feel like you’re missing the point of what I said. I wasn’t making an argument against same-sex marriage. I was saying that one argument FOR same-sex marriage is a bad one. It’s a bad one because it would support marriages based on incest or whatnot.

I said: those who support same-sex marriage should explain what GOODS are accomplished by it. You’ve gestured toward those. Great. We’re good then. I can’t say with certainty, from where I’m sitting, whether the goods you mention are genuine goods. I’m certainly not interested in arguing with you, though.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not boasting as much as I’m trying to explain why the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell vs Hodges came about and why this is unlikely to happen for all the other scary marriage scenarios involving incest and pedophilia and bestiality that inevitably get brought up.

And this shows that you completely misunderstand the argument I was making. It’s not about what would actually happen. It’s about what would be just!

If you say it is unjust to discriminate against people by not allowing them to marry whom they choose, but you do not apply this standard to EVERYONE (including, say, pedophiles), you are undermining your own argument. According to your own argument, we are treating the pedophile unfairly if we don’t allow him to marry the person he wants to.

Those of us who aren’t inclined to say that laws about marriage are discriminatory don’t have that problem.

 

[Dan123]

It’s a bad one because it would support marriages based on incest or whatnot.

Arguments for opposite marriage have the same issue, they’re just harder to see because it’s always been around. The very tip of the slippery slope people try to paint would be simply ‘marriage’, because after all if there’s no marriage there cannot be incestuous marriage. Same sex marriage proponents have always argued from a position of consenting adults making their own decisions, marrying children and animals doesn’t fit at all.

 

[Dan123]

If you say it is unjust to discriminate against people by not allowing them to marry whom they choose

Consenting adults. The argument has always been about consenting adults. Pedophilia is objectively harmful to the victim. Who does same sex marriage harm in a similar fashion?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The only argument for marriage AT ALL is that it benefits children, couples, and society. So make that argument.

Saying that not letting people marry X’s is discriminatory is irrelevant. And yes, that’s with straight marriage too. It would not be even slightly discriminatory to forbid straight marriage and only allow gay marriages.

But it would be very, very wrong, for other reasons.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Consenting adults. The argument has always been about consenting adults. Pedophilia is objectively harmful to the victim. Who does same sex marriage harm in a similar fashion?

You’re missing the thread of the conversation, I think. Consider:

Men may marry any adult unrelated woman they choose.

vs.

Men may marry any adult unrelated consenting adult they choose.

In both cases, we draw a line. Why draw the line THERE? It is not because of considerations of discrimination. (Anywhere we draw the line discriminates against some people!) It is because we think it is BEST for that to be the definition of marriage. Why are you worried about saying that you think allowing gay marriage is best? Why must this be about the bogeyman “discrimination”?

 

[Dan123]

Why do you think those same benefits don’t apply when the couple is of the same sex?

And yes arbitrary rules without justification that target one group disproportionately are discriminatory.

 

[Dan123]

Just checking, so…

“Men may marry any adult unrelated non-catholic woman they choose”

wouldn’t be discriminatory?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why do you think those same benefits don’t apply when the couple is of the same sex?

I never said that. I certainly don’t care to get into an argument about it. I was having a conversation about the notion of discrimination.

And yes arbitrary rules without justification that target one group disproportionately are discriminatory.

There was nothing even faintly arbitrary about the historical law that people could only marry the opposite sex.

 

[Crusader30]

You can’t identify with the lgbt movement they reject the Church and Our Lord laws’s regrading the mortal sin of sodomy and sexual perverson

You must be only Catholic and reject your disordered desires