Buzz Dixon said:
A culture has to define itself. If a culture defines marriage for itself in a particular way, any change to that definition will have far reaching implications, some good, some bad. The bad may very well outweigh the good.
It may. And if it can be demonstrated that the 'bad' which comes with legalising gay marriages outweighs the good, then there will be a logical reason to refuse to legalise them.
Buzz Dixon said:
The current mainstream American culture is that a marriage consists of one male and one female. Redefining that as a male and male, or female and female relationship thus opens the door to other changes in the defintion of marriage: Polygamy (already being sued for), incestuous (already being seriously argued for), and bestial (already seriously proposed).
Please provide support for the claim that these are being sued for/argued for/proposed. I do not doubt you; I am unaware of it and would like to read more.
But assuming they are, in fact, being argued for...so what? The same argument applies. Demonstrate that the bad that would come with legalising polygamy and/or incestuous marriage outweighs the good, and you'll have a case for not legalising them. Note that I deliberately omit discussion of bestial marriages, because they are not in the same arena; an animal cannot consent.
Buzz Dixon said:
The fact that most mainstream Americans are reluctant to throw open the floodgates to what defines a marriage should not be misinterpreted as homophobia; it is simply a common sense reaction to proposals that would have enormously far reaching implications on this country, its culture, and the communities, families, and individuals living within it.
I disagree. I think it should be (correctly) interpreted as homophobia.
Buzz Dixon said:
Most Americans are more than happy to consider some form of civil union that is not by definition a marriage.
Good for them. Homosexuals don't want something 'as good as' the real thing; they want the real thing.
Buzz Dixon said:
As to examples of heterosexuals doing damage to the instiution of marriage, using them as an argument to legalize gay marriage is like citing the fact people still get killed despite seatbelts and airbags as a reason to abandon seatbelts and airbags entirely.
Pointing out heterosexuals doing damage to the institution of marriage isn't an argument to legalise gay marriage. It's a way of illustrating that the people who argue about damage to the institution of marriage aren't really concerned about that, or they would be working to combat those heterosexuals who do damage. The fact that they aren't demonstrates that damage to the institution of marriage isn't the issue; damage to the institution of marrige is a convenient reason they can assert to attempt to avoid being labelled homophobic.
Buzz Dixon said:
It's all part and parcel of what we're standing against: A relenteless degeneration of every sane moral value in a headlong pursuit of the gratification of the secular self. Remember, it was the Enlightenment that created racism in order to justify their own power and privilege.
I was wondering what the quoted article had to do with homosexuality until I got to your comment. Now I see where you're heading. However, I disagree completely. We're not facing a 'relentless degeneration of every sane moral value in a headlong pursuit of the gratification of the secular self.' What we are facing is a reassessment of many moral values in a changing society. The fact that SOME people advocate the adoption of moral values with which you disagree does not make those moral values 'insane', nor does it mean that they advocate those values 'in a headlong pursuit of the gratification of the secular self.'
Please provide support for your claim that "it was the Enlightenment that created racism."
Buzz Dixon said:
Holland is one of the major nexus points of child pornography and bestiality pornography. As I've posted elsewhere, no snowflake ever takes resposnibility for the avalanche.
It is? Can you support that claim?
And assuming that you can, so what? What does this have to do with gay marriage? I imagine that to this you will respond that it is part of the moral degeneration that is rampant, with Holland leading the way. However, such a moral degeneration is not in evidence, and your claiming it exists does not demonstrate your case.
Buzz Dixon said:
We keep citing the reasons, and you (rhetorical) only respond with, "No, we don't care what you say, only our feelings matter in this."
You claim you keep citing the reasons, but you haven't. So far you (particular you, in the posts above) have claimed that legalising homosexual marriages will lead to (or make more likely) polygamous, incestuous and bestial marriages, and that they contribute to the general moral degeneration. But you haven't (and I suspect can't) demonstrate any of this. Nor have you (nor, I suspect, nor can you) demonstrate that polygamous and/or incestuous unions have more 'bad' than 'good' effects (and, once again, because you find them immoral is not a 'bad' effect).
Buzz Dixon said:
It struck me earlier this evening, as I was shredding left over turkey for soup, that the underlying sin to the whole gay marriage movement is covetousness.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, there's nothing wrong with looking at somebody else's car and saying, "I want a car of my own just like that one." What is wrong is to say, "I want that car."
This is what the gay marriage advocates are doing. They don't really care about rights and tax breaks and the like; they've been offered the possibility of civil unions and they turn it down.
They want marriage because they want 200+ million people to deny in their hearts and minds what they know to be true and to say homosexual unions are on an equal par with the male-female relationship of marriage.
The gay marriage advocates covet marriage. They will not be satisfied until they steal it from those to whom it rightfully belongs.
A particularly bad analogy. The same analogy, of course, could have been used against black civil rights activists in the 60s...they were guilty of covetousness, too. They coveted the same rights whites had. In precisely the same way and to the same extent, gays covet the same rights heterosexuals have.
And, in the same way blacks rejected 'separate but equal' treatment (separate schools for blacks, etc.) as being inherently unfair, so do gays reject 'separate but equal' treatment (separate marriage/civil union rules for gays) as being inherently fair.
Blacks coveted equal rights, and weren't happy until they 'stole' it from those to whom it 'rightfully' belonged (ie., whites). Similarly, gays covet equal rights, and won't be happy until they 'steal' it from those to whom it 'rightfully' belongs (ie., heterosexuals).
Gays and blacks covet precisely the same thing - equal rights.
As a white heterosexual to whom equal rights 'rightfully belonged' (read: 'had been given to by society'), I'm only too happy to extend those equal rights to blacks and gays, for I know that doing so in no way diminishes my rights.
Buzz Dixon said:
Once again, none of the snowflakes wants to claim responisbility. Believe me, if gay marriage was the only issue at stake here, it would be harmless.
It is the only issue at stake here, and it is harmless (at least, you haven't demonstrated that it isn't harmless).
Buzz Dixon said:
But it's not the only issue, it's just one of many fronts where the cultural war is being fought.
There is no 'cultural war'. There is the same reassessment of morals that has gone on throughout history. And people made the same claims throughout history as morals were changed and people decided that women should have the same rights as men; that blacks should have the same rights as whites; that children shouldn't have to work long hours, and so forth. During any moral reassessment, there are always those who cry that changing a particular moral view will result in the complete moral degeneration of society. They're always wrong. What evidence is there that those crying the same thing as regards gay marriage aren't just the latest lot of nay-sayers?
Buzz Dixon said:
In Holland doctors are deciding who should live and who should die. What does that do with gay marriage?
Nothing.
Buzz Dixon said:
Well, the same mindset that says we human beings can "reason" our way to morality re marriage also says we can "reason" our way to morality re who lives and who dies.
It's not a 'mindset' - it's how human beings work. How they have ALWAYS worked. We have always reasoned our way to morality, and religious people have always cited their particular deity as support for that morality. Two hundred years ago, many of the religious cited the bible as justification for the idea that slavery was moral. We reasoned our way to the realisation that it isn't moral at all. The same is true of every other moral advance. Does that mean that any moral change we reason our way to is correct? Of course not. Some may well be wrong. But disavowing the idea of reason leading to morality because reason CAN lead to immorality is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It makes about as much sense as disavowing the idea of religion because religion CAN lead to immorality.
Buzz Dixon said:
Gay marriage is just a skirmish is a much wider war.
No, it's not. There is no such war. There is merely the normal reassessment of moral values that has gone on throughout history. The fact is that you are one of the people who at this particular time finds that reassessment not to their taste. And at every other time throughout history, there have been people who felt the same way. Hhumanity (and society) has continued to survive these non-existent wars, and will survive this one.
Buzz Dixon said:
P.S. Assuming you are a person of honor, now that I've shown you the harm, please send the $100 to any charity that feeds poor people.
Well, I didn't make the offer, but if I had, I sure wouldn't be paying up. You've done nothing to show any harm that would come from legalising gay marriage. All you've done is talk about a moral crisis that doesn't exist.
