toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Town Heretic]

I wish I had said that first

But then you'd have to prove it. You don't appear to be particularly interested in that sort of methodology.

anyone can live together without permission from the state

You mean competent adults can. Sure.

but if you want to get married you have to meet certain requirements

True for any license.

and get a blood test,

No, unless you live in Connecticut, Montana or Indiana. :nono:

all of which helps to protect the child do you agree with that?

So do seat belt laws, but that's not the specific focus or reason for them is it?

 

[chrysostom]

But then you'd have to prove it. You don't appear to be particularly interested in that sort of methodology.


You mean competent adults can. Sure.


True for any license.


No, unless you live in Connecticut, Montana or Indiana. :nono:


So do seat belt laws, but that's not the specific focus or reason for them is it?

do you believe homosexual sex is a sin?

 

[bybee]

earlier you said that it was about std's

do you believe marriage protects the child?

You forget, I am a nurse. Do you know how many children are abused by their parents? Marriage is a contract, either blessed by the church or not.
Children are protected by decent people married or not, related or not.
It is the responsibility of all people to protect children.

 

[chrysostom]

You forget, I am a nurse. Do you know how many children are abused by their parents? Marriage is a contract, either blessed by the church or not.
Children are protected by decent people married or not, related or not.
It is the responsibility of all people to protect children.

if you are going to have children, do you think it is important to be married?

 

[Town Heretic]

do you believe homosexual sex is a sin?

I've answered this before, but I'll answer it again if you can tell me how that impacts the issue. You may think inter racial marriage is a sin, but that is an insufficient grounds for and no defense of discrimination.

So, again, any objective argument, or are you just going to continue an endless series of tangentially related side bars without making the case we both know you don't have?

 

[chrysostom]

I've answered this before, but I'll answer it again if you can tell me how that impacts the issue. You may think inter racial marriage is a sin, but that is an insufficient grounds for and no defense of discrimination.

So, again, any objective argument, or are you just going to continue an endless series of tangentially related side bars without making the case we both know you don't have?

okay if you think homosexual sex is a sin
and
you support same sex marriage

you are saying it is okay to sin

 

[bybee]

if you are going to have children, do you think it is important to be married?

Yes, absolutely. However, not all agree with me. I have a grandchild born without benefit of marriage. So in one way she has become the opportunity for our extended family to share in her life and nurture.

 

[chrysostom]

Yes, absolutely. However, not all agree with me. I have a grandchild born without benefit of marriage. So in one way she has become the opportunity for our extended family to share in her life and nurture.

why do you think it is important to be married
if
you don't think it protects the child?

 

[Town Heretic]

okay if you think homosexual sex is a sin and you support same sex marriage you are saying it is okay to sin

No. I'm saying that any number of choices concerning conduct are entirely matters of conscience and absent interference with my right belong between a person and their understanding of standard, be it religious or else. I suspect that you do get it, which is why you never really address reconciling your desire to legislate your religious conviction with your objection to the imposition of Sharia law.

:e4e:

 

[Traditio]

No. I'm saying that any number of choices concerning conduct are entirely matters of conscience and absent interference with my right belong between a person and their understanding of standard, be it religious or else. I suspect that you do get it, which is why you never really address reconciling your desire to legislate your religious conviction with your objection to the imposition of Sharia law.

:e4e:

I've seen this reasoning before, and I think it's flawed. If something is a matter of conscience and we shouldn't interfere, then it's an argument for making something legal (not prohibiting the act in question as being a criminal act). That isn't an argument for extending the benefits/favor of the State to the act in question.

Also, I think that you are being inconsistent. If I decide to have sex with another man, you think that the State not only shouldn't punish me, but furthermore should extend benefits to me [if I decide to make a habit of having sex with that other man].

If I light up a joint, on the other hand... :AMR:

Look, I'm just saying. Moses doesn't proscibe the death penalty for stoners.

 

[chrysostom]

No. I'm saying that any number of choices concerning conduct are entirely matters of conscience and absent interference with my right belong between a person and their understanding of standard, be it religious or else. I suspect that you do get it, which is why you never really address reconciling your desire to legislate your religious conviction with your objection to the imposition of Sharia law.

:e4e:

do you realize that I am not saying that homosexual activity should be against the law?

can you make that distinction?

supporting same sex marriage is tacit approval of what they are doing
so
do you approve of what they are doing?

 

[Town Heretic]

...If something is a matter of conscience and we shouldn't interfere, then it's an argument for making something legal (not criminilizing the thing in question). That isn't an argument for extending the benefits/favor of the State to the thing in question.

The argument concerns whether the denial of right and free exercise of personal conscience was justified to begin with. Here I've argued the practice is demonstrably discriminatory and for no better reason than the one that saw blacks eating and using bathrooms segregated from white society in the old South. It isn't about extending benefits, but whether there's any justification for denying them and the right to contract from which they flow in the first place.

Also, I think that you are being inconsistent.

Prove it.

If I decide to have sex with another man, you think that the State not only shouldn't punish me,

No more than it should punish you for sexual congress with any consenting adult of the opposite gender... That distinction is wholly the product of your moral code and should no more compel another's adherence (absent a compelling argument tied to state interest) than Sharia law.

but furthermore should extend benefits to me [if I decide to make a habit of having sex with that other man].

Only if that's how you describe the same situation with a woman, which you likely won't.

And you still haven't demonstrated anything like inconsistency on my part...your part? That's a different horse/color.

If I light up a joint, on the other hand... :AMR:

Then you begin the discussion of a practice that works and invites an arguable harm; one I've discussed against a number of counters in a thread on the very topic.

:e4e:

 

[bybee]

do you realize that I am not saying that homosexual activity should be against the law?

can you make that distinction?

supporting same sex marriage is tacit approval of what they are doing
so
do you approve of what they are doing?

CHRYS!!! What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if you or I approve or disapprove of another person's legal activities.
Whether I support it or not doesn't matter. What matters is that I support the law which requires equal treatment of all citizens regarding the legal contract of marriage.

 

[Town Heretic]

do you realize that I am not saying that homosexual activity should be against the law?

can you make that distinction?

Set out any quote of mine that makes the claim you are or that I believe you have that in mind. I'll wait. lain:

supporting same sex marriage is tacit approval of what they are doing

Rather, I approve of the exercise of conscience where that exercise doesn't impinge upon my right and I support the right of any adult to contract without state interference absent a compelling interest and argument, which hasn't been argued here by you.

I omit your rephrase to no particular purpose. :e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

CHRYS!!! What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if you or I approve or disapprove of another person's legal activities.
Whether I support it or not doesn't matter. What matters is that I support the law which requires equal treatment of all citizens regarding the legal contract of marriage.

so the law should allow any couple to marry?

 

[Traditio]

Then you begin the discussion of a practice that works and invites an arguable harm; one I've discussed against a number of counters in a thread on the very topic.

:e4e:

Ok. Homosexuals are at a higher risk of getting STDs (in particular, HIV). If I lose a lot of blood, I want as as large a pool of blood donors as possible. Therefore, homosexual acts must be made illegal.

 

[Granite]

Homosexuals are at a higher risk of getting STDs (in particular, HIV).

Plenty of people are at higher risk for certain diseases and cancers. What of it?

If I lose a lot of blood, I want as as large a pool of blood donors as possible.

So keep screening blood, fascist.:yawn:

 

[Traditio]

Plenty of people are at higher risk for certain diseases and cancers. What of it?

So keep screening blood, fascist.:yawn:

I'm just saying. The argument that I gave for the criminalization of homosexual conduct (which I don't consider particularly compelling) is about as good as TH's reasons for saying that smoking marijuana should be illegal. I'd like to point out that the argument I gave was a parody.

 

[Granite]

I'm just saying. The argument that I gave for the criminalization of homosexual conduct (which I don't consider particularly compelling) is about as good as TH's reasons for saying that smoking marijuana should be illegal. I'd like to point out that the argument I gave was a parody.

Yeah, I don't understand TH's hang up when it comes to weed. Not at all.

And hey: Poe's Law is awfully tricky...

 

[bybee]

Ok. Homosexuals are at a higher risk of getting STDs (in particular, HIV). If I lose a lot of blood, I want as as large a pool of blood donors as possible. Therefore, homosexual acts must be made illegal.

What one wants and what one is liable to get may be miles apart!