Gay marriage. Are you for or against it?

YamiB

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2006
492
27
✟8,302.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Perhaps in a Dictatorship government, a society where the majority WANTS to support that model or other social models where the citizens have no representation. Again, your premise is attempting to prop up a strawman of legal contract and recognition dependent on religion and I've pointed out where that premise is flawed on several levels.

Requiring minority protection from the majority does not make a dictatorship. Without that all you have is a tyranny of the majority.
 
Upvote 0
tigg said:
What you say makes sense. One issue at a time. I can see if/when same sex marriage is resolved and if granted, the other issues I have read/heard about will sure as rain appear. Seems as if nothing is simple anymore in our society.
Consenting adults is the key factor here and that means other than polygamy the others still won't have a leg to stand on.

I think society is getting better, I don't think I would have preferred a 'simpler' society when men worked the coal mines with no assurance of security, women stayed at home and had babies and didn't vote and the black man worked the cane fields for no money.
This actually seems to make society simpler by giving out rights equally instead of applying them to some and not others.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Requiring minority protection from the majority does not make a dictatorship. Without that all you have is a tyranny of the majority.

Wrong on several points.
One - my post didn't say anything about excluding minority protection and a Dictatorship can have minority protection.
Two - Tyranny of the majority would require tyranny. Your presumption to equate a united majority equating a tyranny by default would be revealing the hidden premise and flawed reasoning.
 
Upvote 0
centurion said:
Again, your premise is attempting to prop up a strawman of legal contract and recognition dependent on religion and I've pointed out where that premise is flawed on several levels.
There is no strawman, there is a legal marriage contract which can be fulfilled by a couple of same gender just as well as a hetero couple should the opportunity be granted. Since this is a legal contract it doesn't affect the marriages of any religious people with counter concepts of marriage and so is not a reason for them to deny this SS couples this status.
I am fully aware that people may vote as they wish but we are talking about reasons.
 
Upvote 0

Tigg

Senior Veteran
Jan 5, 2007
6,429
734
✟17,774.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Consenting adults is the key factor here and that means other than polygamy the others still won't have a leg to stand on.

I think society is getting better, I don't think I would have preferred a 'simpler' society when men worked the coal mines with no assurance of security, women stayed at home and had babies and didn't vote and the black man worked the cane fields for no money.
This actually seems to make society simpler by giving out rights equally instead of applying them to some and not others.
Consenting adults...I know that will affect polygamy. Seems as if they are into children as well from the news reports I get.

I did not mean simpler in the manner you post. Society, IMO, isn't getting better when children can't go outside to play, catch the bus or get off the school bus and go home. Drive by shootings and so much more. But I do believe I am off topic now. So, no debating for me here as I haven't really made up my mind on gay marriage. Need a solid side for that.

-Peace-
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is no strawman, there is a legal marriage contract which can be fulfilled by a couple of same gender just as well as a hetero couple should the opportunity be granted. Since this is a legal contract it doesn't affect the marriages of any religious people with counter concepts of marriage and so is not a reason for them to deny this SS couples this status.
I am fully aware that people may vote as they wish but we are talking about reasons.

Please note that I highlighted your Since, so and what your presented conclusion is referencing.

You can't have it both ways.

You along with others have been arguing against religion being a factor in secular law only to present a 'reason' based on a religious factor. Of course, the circular portion would be based on something being "good law" by default and has been a constant theme by others.

But the reason you gave would still be self-contradicting and circular.

And my pointing that out would not even address that you needed to restrict the issue to being one of amoral legal binding and fully ignored the morality issue that society dictates or even the relating effects due to causality.
 
Upvote 0

YamiB

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2006
492
27
✟8,302.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Wrong on several points.
One - my post didn't say anything about excluding minority protection and a Dictatorship can have minority protection.
Two - Tyranny of the majority would require tyranny. Your presumption to equate a united majority equating a tyranny by default would be revealing the hidden premise and flawed reasoning.

You are proposing that people vote against same-sex marriage based on their religion are you not? Even if it is done through the democtratic process it should be not matter because the minority group would have their rights protected. Much like we would not be able to vote away interracial marriage. To eliminate this minority protection would indeed create a tyranny of the masses.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So, has anyone found a secular reason for denying same sex civil marriage?

I've seen the old argument that they can't have kids. Of course that argument holds no water.

I've seen the claim that it's not natural but nature refutes that.

Has anyone presented an argument for denying same sex civil marriage that doesn't boil down to desire to impose a religious meaning for marriage onto secular law, or a simply "I don't agree with it" followed by no actual argument?

Just checking ;)

Still waiting for a secular argument for why gays should not be able to have legal civil marriage.

I suppose that there aren't any good reasons.
 
Upvote 0

Valgaav

Active Member
Jan 5, 2007
84
3
37
✟230.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Still waiting for a secular argument for why gays should not be able to have legal civil marriage.

I suppose that there aren't any good reasons.

The best argument people likely have is religion. And I'd bet most gay people aren't Christian - I wonder why. Would YOU worship a god that persecutes you?
 
Upvote 0

YamiB

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2006
492
27
✟8,302.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Still waiting for a secular argument for why gays should not be able to have legal civil marriage.

I suppose that there aren't any good reasons.

The best argument people likely have is religion. And I'd bet most gay people aren't Christian - I wonder why. Would YOU worship a god that persecutes you?

Eh there are still plenty of homosexual Christians especially since it is up to interpretation if it is a sin. Though I'm sure that the majority view within Christianity towards homosexuals has driven people away.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are proposing that people vote against same-sex marriage based on their religion are you not?

:sigh:
I don't propose anything in such a generalized sense.

However, I do advocate that a Christian vote and/or act in accordance to Christian faith. But whether they are a slave, a prisoner, under Dictatorship, Democracy, Anarchy, etc. it would not matter and would be the same advocacy. And at least I have fully acknowledge that citizens vote based on their OWN standards, values, morality, understanding, etc. or lack of same. Whether or not that matches a religion or their religion would be irrelevant.

However, you have constantly presented an objection because a majority vote can be associated with religion or a religion. That would be religious prohibition and unconstitutional.
Even if it is done through the democtratic process it should be not matter because the minority group would have their rights protected. Much like we would not be able to vote away interracial marriage. To eliminate this minority protection would indeed create a tyranny of the masses.

Again, you do not address what I posted.
I have clearly and repeatedly referred to a Constitutional Democratic Republic. I'll say that again: Constitutional Democratic Republic. Your attempting to argue against pure democracy and presenting unsubstantiated assertions on protections, rights, and tyranny as if it related to my posts.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The best argument people likely have is religion.

Of course religious arguments don't count when we are talking about civil law. Laws need a secular purpose.

And I'd bet most gay people aren't Christian - I wonder why. Would YOU worship a god that persecutes you?

It would be an interesting statistic to see. There are certainly gay Christians on this website. But I don't think that I have a very good sense for the percentage of gays and lesbians who are Christian.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

YamiB

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2006
492
27
✟8,302.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
:sigh:
I don't propose anything in such a generalized sense.

However, I do advocate that a Christian vote and/or act in accordance to Christian faith. But whether they are a slave, a prisoner, under Dictatorship, Democracy, Anarchy, etc. it would not matter and would be the same advocacy. And at least I have fully acknowledge that citizens vote based on their OWN standards, values, morality, understanding, etc. or lack of same. Whether or not that matches a religion or their religion would be irrelevant.

However, you have constantly presented an objection because a majority vote can be associated with religion or a religion. That would be religious prohibition and unconstitutional.


Again, you do not address what I posted.
I have clearly and repeatedly referred to a Constitutional Democratic Republic. I'll say that again: Constitutional Democratic Republic. Your attempting to argue against pure democracy and presenting unsubstantiated assertions on protections, rights, and tyranny as if it related to my posts.

Of course people can and will vote according to their beliefs. Yet once a law is voted in it should be evaluated, if it has no valid reason to be a law then it should be struck down. Not accepting another person's religion as a reason for something to be law is not religious prohibition.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
centurion said:
Please note that I highlighted your Since, so and what your presented conclusion is referencing.
You can't have it both ways.
You along with others have been arguing against religion being a factor in secular law only to present a 'reason' based on a religious factor.
What? I attempted to show how a common reason for denying this right to same sex couples (a religious reason) was unreasonable.
Of course, the circular portion would be based on something being "good law" by default and has been a constant theme by others.
It extends to consenting adults the right to enter into a marital contract with the person they love. These people are already living together and sleeping together they just want the same basic rights that a married couple get.

We have been asking for reasons why this is a bad law since the start of this thread Centurion.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's a cheap shot CC and you know it.
Your opinion is noted.
But the alternative of not showing what it was would probably result in my having to scan past you bumping your own posts some more. Personally, I've got an opinion on that practice too, but I'll keep that out of the thread.
Care to offer a secular reason for denying gays legal civil marriage? Or will you admit that you have none.

Perhaps you have not read the thread or a single one of my posts then.
One such secular reason would be that the citizens don't wish to include that model in their government's recognition. It would be a secular reason that varies by government and the citizens' values/morality.
 
Upvote 0

YamiB

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2006
492
27
✟8,302.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Perhaps you have not read the thread or a single one of my posts then.
One such secular reason would be that the citizens don't wish to include that model in their government's recognition. It would be a secular reason that varies by government and the citizens' values/morality.


Just because the citizens don't want it that way does not make it right. Or do you think that the issues of segregation and interracial marriage should have gone another way?
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just because the citizens don't want it that way does not make it right.
It does in a Constitutional Democratic Republic operating under Rule by Consent principle.
Or do you think that the issues of segregation and interracial marriage should have gone another way?

Historic Revisionism (negationism).
There is now Interracial marriage recognition because it was supported by the majority and allowable due to the majority's provisions.
What did you think?
That a minority made a law that didn't exist and forced it on the overwhelming majority?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You opinion is noted.

Glad to hear that.

Perhaps you have not read the thread or a single one of my posts then.
One such secular reason would be that the citizens don't wish to include that model in their government's recognition. It would be a secular reason that varies by government and the citizens' values/morality.

That's a truly poor answer. Actually, it’s a dodge. It ducks the question completely.

Please provide a good secular reason for why those citizens would think that legal civil gay marriage should be denied. And “Because they don’t like it” is a very poor reason.
 
Upvote 0