Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps I missed something.
I thought the OP was discussing the U.S.
You do realize that when someone references a viewpoint, it is compared or contrasted with the whole in a Democracy, don't you?
You bet'cha!Your post claimed something untrue, but it is understandable seeing as you limited your observations to only one of my posts mirroring a response to a post making an assertion.
OK, perhaps I should have worded that differently. Let me try to articulate it again.
Okie dokie!
Maybe I'm the one missing something. I'm accustomed to evaluating arguments on their merits. I wasn't aware that debate must be "compared or contrasted with the whole in a [d]emocracy" (whatever on earth that means!).
You bet'cha!
Perhaps you might wish to argue against what I said and not your strawman.
I made no such reference about a right to not be offended, I was referring to forced endorsement. There is a difference, just like there is a difference between representation and dictatorship.
None of which countries the fact that the laws of other countries do not affect either the laws of this country or the immorality of discriminating against a minority.Perhaps if I had said that, your reference would have relevance.
But I didn't.
The request was socratic questioning to point out the obvious fact that governments have definition for marriages and these claims that any condition where a group would not be included in such a marriage definition (i.e. marriage remaining undefined and fully inclusive) is one straight out of Utopian fantasy.
Perhaps you mistaken me for one trying to advocate that Secularism equates good laws.
The OP doesn't ask for a "good" (subjective) secular reasoning. But thanks for pointing out that secular laws can exist, don't equate right, and don't require "good reasons". Kind of underlines that the request and value in Secularism in and of itself is sort of worthless.
Elevate?More of the same empty claims only to slander any and all groups not elevating same-gender coupling.
Too bad your statements above about discrimination, hate, prejudice, etc. can't segregate those same statements from its obvious hypocrisy.
see aboveYou might want to re-read your submission of Two Wrongs fallacy and recognize that discrimination, hate, prejudice, and so on against any religious group not sharing the ideology exalting same-sex acts is convicted by that claim of "no difference." Not that I agree with your statements, simply that it is self-condemning.
I suppose this is common enough when the ability to justify one ideology on its own merits fails and is left to use a non sequitur for legitimization and slur all opposition.
hate is hate no matter who it is directed agaisnt.That IS what we so often see.
Pointing to a racial issue in a desire and behavior discussion only to follow with the anti-religion, anti-Christian, anti-whatever besmirching rhetoric.
If you have read the thread, you would see that reasons have already been given. They just get denied or avoided like the plague.
Society views prejudice as distasteful, immoral, disgusting yet you are apparently still walking the streetsSome of the reasons have been given even by those that didn't realize or intend to give a secular reason.
You see one poster tried arguing against the yuck factor (or something like it) and yet didn't realize that if a society viewed an act distasteful, immoral, disgusting, etc. that same society has every right to have laws reflecting its morality, values, etc. as long as it wasn't contradicting more of the same from that society.
In the Secularist advocacy, people seem to forget that morality is decided by the given society or a given standard valued by the society. So if it is a yuck reason, what alleged dictate rules that society is immoral for not embracing or promoting the yuck?
Arguing against what wasn't asserted?
Originally Posted by Morcova
The majority doesn't have the right to vote away the rights of the minority.
Arguing against what wasn't asserted?
I keep seeing that empty claim that some don't see or know of a totally religion-free reason. Yet at the same time, there is an ignoring of the fact that the citizens petitioning, voting on and passing an Amendment stating they collectively are willing to promote a specific model IS a secular reason.
Amd that your religion has no place in law-making, why should gay marriage be banned?
Different religions from what? I never said anything about one religion.Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.
Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.
Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.
KC reuses this old canard that because homosexuality is taboo in most cultures around the world, then that means it is a universal and thus Natural Law (or whatever) demonstrates it to be immoral and perverse.And that reason is...?
Old Duck? Why would an entire society make something taboo? Hmmmmmmm. What "universal" taboos are there? Incest... Murder... Lying... Stealing... why would some include homosexuality, eating meat or going in public with your head or face uncovered? What would they have in common with the others?KC reuses this old canard that because homosexuality is taboo in most cultures around the world, then that means it is a universal and thus Natural Law (or whatever) demonstrates it to be immoral and perverse.
Old Duck? Why would an entire society make something taboo? Hmmmmmmm. What "universal" taboos are there? Incest... Murder... Lying... Stealing...
why would some include homosexuality, eating meat or going in public with your head or face uncovered? What would they have in common with the others?
Maybe murder and incest are superstitions and ignorance? Why should I accept your interpretation? I might think homosexuality is harmful.Those are harmful to society.
Superstition and ignorance. And because at some point some ruler decided to assert his authority and see if he could make his subjects jump through the hoops. Old news.
Maybe murder and incest are superstitions and ignorance? Why should I accept your interpretation? I might think homosexuality is harmful.
It's more (or less?) than a "harmful" issue. How does homosexuality deprive you of your life, liberty, or property. All of the other crimes violate someone elses equal constitutional rights to those three things. Homosexuality in no way does. (I am actually not sure that private consensual incestuous acts between adults are illegal. Anyone have a statute that can be referred to? [EDIT - MN Statute 609.365 - Whoever has sexual intercourse with another nearer of kin to the actor than first cousin, computed by rules of the civil law, whether of the half or the whole blood, with knowledge of the relationship, is guilty of http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pu...=609.365&keyword_type=exact&keyword=incest#k1incesthttp://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pu...=609.365&keyword_type=exact&keyword=incest#k0 and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years. I guess it is illegal. Go figure.]You might. But in order for me to buy that garbage you'd have to demonstrate how homosexuality is harmful. Moreover for a majority of a society to ban/forbid homosexuality you have to illustrate how homosexuality can harm ALL of society.
I think we can agree that anything which destroys society would be harmful.
Incest - increases the prevalence of genetic disorders and defects overall.
Murder - well obviously if everyone kills everyone else no one will be around to carry on the society.
Theft - steal enough from people and eventually they'll starve.
Homosexuality - hmmmm...there's nothing inheirently harmful about the activity itself infact gays find it quite pleasurable. Red Herring time: "well obviously if everyone where gay there would be no children and society would die out."
Just to get you started.
Incest - increases the prevalence of genetic disorders and defects overall. It also increases the closeness and security of a family. Look at some of the Negev nomadic societies.
Murder - well obviously if everyone kills everyone else no one will be around to carry on the society.Don't have to kill them all, just the ones that threaten society and security and peace. Or the ones you don't like.
Theft - steal enough from people and eventually they'll starve.Encourages community ownership, interdependencec and a lack of value placed on things.
Homosexuality - hmmmm...there's nothing inheirently harmful about the activity itself infact gays find it quite pleasurable. Red Herring time: "well obviously if everyone where gay there would be no children and society would die out." Well if everyone did it society would cease to exist.... (that's for playing the what if everyone did the other "naughty" things.)
Just to get you started.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?