Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Conscious Z]

With liberals, I see a whole lot of "why not" argumentation.

"Why not" allow homosexual marriage, rather then an argument expounding on why a country should be obligated to ascertain abnormal, extremely uncommon and very controversial marriage.

It seems to be an emotional package then a rational one, the whole country getting bent out of shape and causing problems over hardly 1% of marriage rights.
There are much bigger problems on the subject of marriage that get hardly no attention at all. Until one takes care of that, why should anyone ascertain something that is, in reality, outlandish and unneeded?

Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.

First, I'm not sure you understand the definition of "ascertain." It means to discover or figure out.

Second, the reason a lot of liberals take a "why not" approach is that it is far more reasonable to start with the assumption that the state must have justification for limiting the actions of its citizens rather than assuming that we must make a case for why a given citizen has a right to perform every single action they wish to undertake.

Finally, it doesn't matter if it affects fewer than 1% of people (which I'm not sure is true). Tyranny of the majority is a major problem in democracies, and it's a testament to modern society that we would be willing to stand up and protect the interests of such a small group.

 

[Roonwit]

With liberals, I see a whole lot of "why not" argumentation.

"Why not" allow homosexual marriage, rather then an argument expounding on why a country should be obligated to ascertain abnormal, extremely uncommon and very controversial marriage.

It seems to be an emotional package then a rational one, the whole country getting bent out of shape and causing problems over hardly 1% of marriage rights.
There are much bigger problems on the subject of marriage that get hardly no attention at all. Until one takes care of that, why should anyone ascertain something that is, in reality, outlandish and unneeded?

Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.

Lest it be thought that my silence implies endorsement of what Windstaff said here, I just want to disagree. It is entirely right that people should be concerned for justice for all people in the country, however small the group. The disagreement here is not (or should not be) about whether justice should be given to all, but about what proper justice looks like in this particular situation.

Although in this particular case I disagree with the proponents of SSM, or at least feel that the case for it has not been satisfactorily made, I would far rather live in a country that errs on the side of allowing people to do things that they shouldn't than in one that errs on the side of stopping people from doing what they feel is best.

By the way, I also read the "drivel of society" comment the way selfinflikted did - so it wasn't that clear from what you wrote.

Roonwit

 

[WindStaff]

Lest it be thought that my silence implies endorsement of what Windstaff said here, I just want to disagree. It is entirely right that people should be concerned for justice for all people in the country, however small the group. The disagreement here is not (or should not be) about whether justice should be given to all, but about what proper justice looks like in this particular situation.

Although in this particular case I disagree with the proponents of SSM, or at least feel that the case for it has not been satisfactorily made, I would far rather live in a country that errs on the side of allowing people to do things that they shouldn't than in one that errs on the side of stopping people from doing what they feel is best.

By the way, I also read the "drivel of society" comment the way selfinflikted did - so it wasn't that clear from what you wrote.

Roonwit

When you read something and perceive it in a biased matter, of course you are going to misinterpret it.

SSM is nothing more then fanaticism, it is not a 'right'. It is fundamentally no different then one asking to marry their sibling- the relationship is abnormal, the circumstance which leads to it is controversial, you cannot conceive children and families are subject to much disappointment.
It's as unhealthy as bestiality and vain in any Christian idea of family.

All society has done is shape it into a hammer and put it to traditional belief. Can you even think of any movement in which the subjects were the overwhelming minority of it?
Of course not, because what I say is true- it is a weapon to promote anti-religion. Secular propaganda dressed as something else.

It is a doctrine of demons in that it also, as well, has poured into a good deal of churches and made Christianity no different therein then secularity itself- a cheap Christianity which requires no sacrifice or accountability. The historical theologians would have perished the thought of homosexual marriage in an instant.

 

[Belk]

When you read something and perceive it in a biased matter, of course you are going to misinterpret it.

SSM is nothing more then fanaticism, it is not a 'right'. It is fundamentally no different then one asking to marry their sibling- the relationship is abnormal, the circumstance which leads to it is controversial, you cannot conceive children and families are subject to much disappointment.
It's as unhealthy as bestiality and vain in any Christian idea of family.

All society has done is shape it into a hammer and put it to traditional belief. Can you even think of any movement in which the subjects were the overwhelming minority of it?
Of course not, because what I say is true- it is a weapon to promote anti-religion. Secular propaganda dressed as something else.

It is a doctrine of demons in that it also, as well, has poured into a good deal of churches and made Christianity no different therein then secularity itself- a cheap Christianity which requires no sacrifice or accountability. The historical theologians would have perished the thought of homosexual marriage in an instant.

"Those horrible gays are persecuting Christians by wanting to join a secular institution that the supreme law of the land has determined to be a right".


Allow me to propose an alternative hypothesis.

Homosexuals are tired of being treated like second class citizens and are standing up and demanding the equality they deserve.

 

[selfinflikted]

Homosexuals are tired of being treated like second class citizens and are standing up and demanding the equality they deserve.

Yep!

 

[Skaloop]

"Those horrible gays are persecuting Christians by wanting to join a secular institution that the supreme law of the land has determined to be a right".


Allow to propose an alternative hypothesis.

Homosexuals are tired of being treated like second class citizens and are standing up and demanding the equality they deserve.

And of course, it's not just homosexuals. There are plenty of us heterosexuals who want homosexuals to get their equality, too.

 

[trunks2k]

And of course, it's not just homosexuals. There are plenty of us heterosexuals who want homosexuals to get their equality, too.

Probably well over 50% at this point. Recent polls have overall support at around 56%, and less than 40% in opposition. And historically, the younger the demographic, the stronger the skew to support with no evidence that people who were in support at a younger age change their opinion as they get older.

 

[Skaloop]

Probably well over 50% at this point. Recent polls have overall support at around 56%, and less than 40% in opposition. And historically, the younger the demographic, the stronger the skew to support with no evidence that people who were in support at a younger age change their opinion as they get older.

Most of the polls I see seem to have that 56% sort of number including people who are just not opposed to it, but are not actively in favour of it, either. So I expect the actual percentage of people outright supporting it is actually lower than that. Still nowhere near the 1% WindStaff alleges.

And do you think WindStaff would change his mind if it was a clear majority in favour of the change? No, he'd oppose legalizing SSM to the bitter end. So it's not about actual percentages of people who support it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Just so you all know, those who support gay rights and are not gay themselves - I am proud to have your support.

 

[Paulos23]

"Those horrible gays are persecuting Christians by wanting to join a secular institution that the supreme law of the land has determined to be a right".


Allow me to propose an alternative hypothesis.

Homosexuals are tired of being treated like second class citizens and are standing up and demanding the equality they deserve.

Exactly, and many of us are tired of friends and family treated as second class citizens.

 

[Skaloop]

Just so you all know, those who support gay rights and are not gay themselves - I am proud to have your support.

I've been on side since the debate came up in Canada over a decade ago. And last summer, I attended the same-sex wedding of two of my best friends. It was awesome. And even though we have nation-wide SSM up here (since 2005) and what happens in the States has little bearing on us, I still applaud every time a new state makes it legal or removes a ban. It's happening so much faster than I expected, and it's only a matter of time until SSM is the reality in every state in the union. And that's great.

I am proud to offer my support (as minimal as that may be since I am a non-citizen of the US with no vote) because I have seen first hand the culmination of a loving same-sex relationship.

 

[Belk]

Exactly, and many of us are tired of friends and family treated as second class citizens.

Too right!

 

[Cearbhall]

With liberals, I see a whole lot of "why not" argumentation.

Well, yes, because that's the only thing keeping opposite-sex marriage laws in place. There's no inherent governmental obligation to institutionalize marriage. We've stripped away the things that don't apply to same-sex marriages, like the focus on procreation, though whether those things were actually codified to begin with is debatable.

 

[WindStaff]

Well, yes, because that's the only thing keeping opposite-sex marriage laws in place. There's no inherent governmental obligation to institutionalize marriage. We've stripped away the things that don't apply to same-sex marriages, like the focus on procreation, though whether those things were actually codified to begin with is debatable.

The definition of marriage was defined in 325AD, adopted by Rome and carried through Europe to America.

It's not debatable what the definition of marriage is

 

[Cearbhall]

The definition of marriage was defined in 325AD, adopted by Rome and carried through Europe to America.

It's not debatable what the definition of marriage is

It's changed several times over the course of US history, so apparently, it is.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's changed several times over the course of US history, so apparently, it is.

Thankfully, Windstaff appears to be in the minority in this thread.

 

[WindStaff]

Thankfully, Windstaff appears to be in the minority in this thread.

Yeah, the 90% percent who disagree with you few are getting their last minute Christmas shopping done.

And no, the definition of marriage hasn't changed through history. It's always been between a man and a woman, why do you think it wasn't until recently that homosexuals are even allowed to marry?

 

[Skaloop]

The definition of marriage was defined in 325AD, adopted by Rome and carried through Europe to America.

It's not debatable what the definition of marriage is

You don't know how definitions work. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Also, you can't say marriage was defined at a time before the English language or the actual word "marriage" even existed.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yeah, the 90% percent who disagree with you few are getting their last minute Christmas shopping done.

90%, huh? Too bad they aren't around to voice their opinion.

Thankfully, a majority of Americans do not agree with you.

 

[WindStaff]

Thankfully, a majority of Americans do not agree with you.

I don't think a majority have ever taken the time to think about it. The majority of Americans also think blood is blue inside their veins, an assumption on par with LGBT being natural