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.
Consenting adults is the key factor here and that means other than polygamy the others still won't have a leg to stand on.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.
Requiring minority protection from the majority does not make a dictatorship. Without that all you have is a tyranny of the majority.
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.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.
Consenting adults...I know that will affect polygamy. Seems as if they are into children as well from the news reports I get.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Argument from ignorance.
Yeah, I saw it the first time.
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.
What? I attempted to show how a common reason for denying this right to same sex couples (a religious reason) was unreasonable.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.
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.Of course, the circular portion would be based on something being "good law" by default and has been a constant theme by others.
Your opinion is noted.That's a cheap shot CC and you know it.
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.
It does in a Constitutional Democratic Republic operating under Rule by Consent principle.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?
You opinion is noted.
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.
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?