I don't have to read it DD 31 states put Gay Marriage on the ballot..Gay marriage loses 31 times....that is good enough for me...........
And what makes you think it won't keep coming to the ballots? People don't just stop wanting to marry the one they love, and people don't just start thinking unfair treatment is okay. Traditional yet arbitrary social rules, on the other hand, have often died slowly but surely.
That explains allot. Most I know are not.
I accept homosexuality. This does not mean I want to have the meaning of marraige expanded to include gay couples.
This is the reality you chose to ignore.
Which makes no sense as immoral people already get married for immoral reasons. I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, but even if I did it would not undermine marriage anymore than it already has been. It should be clear that marriage is a contract between individuals moreso than it is an institution. It is what those within
each marriage make of it. If my neighbor married his wife for sex and she married him for money, that would not actually undermine the meaning of my own marriage.
Here we go with the interracial marraige thing again. :doh
Not even remotely the same, sorry.
Because Homosexuality to me is wrong, it is a sin. I respect the persons choice as their own and love the person. This does not mean I have to support a lifestyle I see as sinful.
Not even remotely? lol... yeah right.
Both deny people the "privilege"
roll
to marry who they want on the basis that the marriage would be considered sexually deviant and they did not want society to condone sexual deviance by sanctioning sexually deviant marriages. Nearly all of the "arguments" against miscegenation have exact parallels with the arguments against gay marriage. The notion that it would confuse/harm kids. The notion that the traditional and natural forms of marriage must be preserved. It's analogous.
No they are not. I said they can have civil unions or whatever you want to call it. My argument is purely religious and based in semantics. So not even remotely the same.
And what if they had suggested that interracial couples can have civil unions and not marriages? Would that have been okay? Why or why not?
Let's see... a male and female from different races can procreate, or at least attempt it. They can raise children.
Last I checked homosexual behavior cannot accomplish that.
When they can... then I'll support a change in the law.
And where do you draw the line? Cousins? Sisters? Brothers? Dad and Sis? Mom and son? After all, they have "feelings" too.
.
Um, cousins can procreate, as could dad and sis if she were sexually developed. So your procreation theory doesn't seem universally applicable. Should we also prevent infertile people from getting married? Procreation is associated with marriage, but not necessary for it. The problem with incest is the higher rates of recessive genetic defects in offspring, so the real problem is the prospect of harming a 3rd party. Since homosexual acts do not lead to offspring, this argument is not applicable to gay marriage (and this is the main place where it does differ from interracial marriage). However, bisexual people who love somebody of the same sex often already have kids and will whether they can marry or not.
The kids issue would be more relevant regarding gay adoption, use of surrogates, and custody battles for bisexuals. We don't allow sex offenders to adopt kids, but we certainly don't disallow them from marrying each other. Why? Because marriage is simply a contract between intimates. And adults have the right to enter into contracts.
A ridicules red herring does not an argument make.
Apples and Oranges, does not apply.
Well the closest you have come to explaining why they are not similar is in mentioning that you are for civil unions. So that wasn't a red herring in any way.
How am I poking holes?? It is a sin, so I will not support it.
Please point out the holes?
I don't think you understand sin then. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then allowing gay marriage would make not choosing homosexuality a more meaningful choice, and make abstention from it more virtuous. Forced morality is no morality at all. If I avoid killing people only because I'd probably get caught and go to prison, I am not being moral, I am being indirectly forced to be civil. (Incidentally, the same goes for god. If I avoid killing people only to avoid going to hell, I am not doing it out of morality per se). The optimal function of society is not to enforce morals, but to protect people from each other so that they can freely choose how they want to live their lives, sinful or not outside of harm to others.
Irrelevant. If they base their morals on something else that is fine. My are because of my religion. So the argument they try to present has no value from a moral standpoint. It basically is saying they have better morals than I do because they come form some place else. Simply put, they disqualify their own argument.
I don't really believe that. Is your belief in certain fairy tales really the only thing holding you back from hurting people? Your fairy tales do, however, provide a nice way to justify bigotry that makes no logical sense, huh?
This debate has nothing to do with logic so how is that a counter? That would be what we call a cop out where I come form.
Morality has everything to do with logic.
It's this easy:
"We cannot find that a right to same-sex marriage is so deeply rooted in the tradition, history and conscience of the people of this state that it ranks as a fundamental right".
~Justice Barry T. Albin, NJ Supreme Court, February 2006.
See? No religion required.
Impressive three fallacies in one you have there. Appeal to tradition, authority, and ad populum, specifically.