It's only bad when it legitimizes an otherwise bad relationship, like brother-sister incest for example.

(Besides incest, what other, if any, relationships are "bad," in your view, and why?)

So it's your view, basically, that we can call just about any relationship we want a marriage, and that it won't have any effect at all on how the population at large considers marriage?


I keep asking, and I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer- do you believe that divorce laws have had an impact on how people view marriage?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Socail Security? the homosexual community is already paying ont the system.

Ya know what it is, it's the simple fact you think it is wrong and immoral but for it to make a good legal argument you can't say it is about relegion.

You win. Tradition and just because and weaking marraige (you never once proved how it weakens heterosexual marraige you just pissy about me asking) are reasons to not give someone the use of a word but the benifits of the word.

Wanna know why I am an athiest? These empty brained unprovable arguments.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I don't think any other relatinships between two adults are bad.

Polygamy is just strange to me, and I'm not sure 3 or more people can ever have the same level of committment that two people have. I also don't believe that banning polygamy disenfanchises an entire class of people from marrying the person they love. Polygamy also raises some practical problems, like if a husband has 3 wives, but one of those wives also has mulitple husbands, etc.

So it's your view, basically, that we can call just about any relationship we want a marriage, and that it won't have any effect at all on how the population at large considers marriage?


No, I'm not talking any relationship. I'm talking about a lifelong committment between two adults who love each other. That's fairly narrowly defined, don't you think?

I keep asking, and I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer- do you believe that divorce laws have had an impact on how people view marriage?


Yes, I imagine they have. If there's an easy out, it probably allows some people to take marriage less seriously. I don't see how allowing gay marriage has anything to do with divorce laws.

---

_______________________________________________

So Francois with your background do you think you could come up with the "Evangelical Valuation-of-Life Calculus"?

---

Af > Di > Ds > Ho > Fe

where Af=Aborted embryo, Di = dead Iraqui, Ds = dead Sudanese,

Ho = non-embryonic homosexual, and Fe = Freezer rotten fertility clinic embryo.

And...

Af ~ Sc

where Sc is a stem cell in a petri dish

Thus Sc>Fe, and Sc>Ho

QED

With this formula in hand you may be able to make sense of the recent election.

Polygamy is just strange to me, and I'm not sure 3 or more people can ever have the same level of committment that two people have. Who are you to judge what level of committment they're capable of?

I also don't believe that banning polygamy disenfanchises an entire class of people from marrying the person they love. How do you figure? It "disenfranchises" every person who desires to be in a polygamous marriage. Not to mention significant religious subsets.

Polygamy also raises some practical problems, like if a husband has 3 wives, but one of those wives also has mulitple husbands, etc. What practical problem is that? None at all, really- certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with successfully before.

I'm not talking any relationship. I'm talking about a lifelong committment between two adults who love each other. That's fairly narrowly defined, don't you think? But of course, you're not talking about a lifelong committment, since we don't really believe marriage is for life anymore, do we?

What you're saying is that 1- we've redefined marriage to be a dissolvable union, and 2- now you want to redefine it to include unions between adults of the same sex, and 3- once this change is brought about, you see no reason why we should or would allow further changes. And you have zero basis for the third claim.

I imagine they have. If there's an easy out, it probably allows some people to take marriage less seriously. Not only that, but it encourages people to think about marriage itself in a new and different way. Marriage comes to be viewed as nothing more than a relationship designed for the happiness and fulfillment of the two people involved in it, as opposed to a binding committment, with its own unique rewards and responsibities.

I don't see how allowing gay marriage has anything to do with divorce laws. It will serve to further cement the idea that getting married, and then staying married and raising a family is just one choice among many equally valid alternatives.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

won't even attempt ;-)

hey! that was my joke! ;-)

I also don't believe that banning polygamy disenfanchises an entire class of people from marrying the person they love. How do you figure? It "disenfranchises" every person who desires to be in a polygamous marriage. Not to mention significant religious subsets.

No it doesn't. No relgion commands polygamy that I know of, even if a couple allow it. And I don't care if I disenfrancise every one who desires a polygmous marriage. No one desires to be gay or not, it's not a voluntary choice and that is why they deserve protection.



Polygamy also raises some practical problems, like if a husband has 3 wives, but one of those wives also has mulitple husbands, etc. What practical problem is that? None at all, really- certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with successfully before.

Of course it;s a problem. It's a complete legal morass when it comes to issues like spousal benefits, power of attorney, etc. And nothing like that has ever been dealt with before.



I'm not talking any relationship. I'm talking about a lifelong committment between two adults who love each other. That's fairly narrowly defined, don't you think? But of course, you're not talking about a lifelong committment, since we don't really believe marriage is for life anymore, do we?

Dont put words in my mouth. It should be for life. I've never argued otherwise.



What you're saying is that 1- we've redefined marriage to be a dissolvable union, and 2- now you want to redefine it to include unions between adults of the same sex, and 3- once this change is brought about, you see no reason why we should or would allow further changes. And you have zero basis for the third claim.


1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. You're right, I see no compelling reason to change it further. You have no basis to claim that there need be additional changes. The slippery slope argument doens't hold water.

I imagine they have. If there's an easy out, it probably allows some people to take marriage less seriously. Not only that, but it encourages people to think about marriage itself in a new and different way. Marriage comes to be viewed as nothing more than a relationship designed for the happiness and fulfillment of the two people involved in it, as opposed to a binding committment, with its own unique rewards and responsibities.

I'm sure some people view it that way.



I don't see how allowing gay marriage has anything to do with divorce laws. It will serve to further cement the idea that getting married, and then staying married and raising a family is just one choice among many equally valid alternatives.


How the hell do you get that? It simply allows homosexuals to marry, (and stay married to, and raise a family with if they so desire) the person they love.

---

_______________________________________________

Please do not put homosexuality (and prostitution) in one line with murder and theft. I dont`t believe you mean this as equalization. It easily can be misunderstood and taken as offend though.

If I understand you right, you say, that moral opinions are individual and everybody has its own. I agree with that.

Further (if I understand you right) you say, moral opinions are just there without need for reasons. Here I disagree and claim the opposite. I consider it as immoral, to declare anything as immoral without reason to do so.

Let`s consider an action that doesn`t allow any reasons to call it immoral. That means (IMO) it doesn`t have any negative effect to anybody - neither individuals nor society.

Considering this action as immoral despite the lack of reasons does obviously have no positive effects. But it has negative effects to all those who would like to perform this action - specially if it`s considered as immoral by a large group or even the majority.

Thus having negative effects but no positive, I consider immoralization without reason as immoral.

Though you`ve not been saying, homosexuality is immoral, the question for reasons still remains to be answered by those, who do.

Cheers Torsten

I was not, in fact, equating homsexuality to murder or prostitution, so you can rest easy.;-)

What I was equating is the methods by which a person decides whether or not something is immoral. Prostitution does not, in itself, hurt anyone. However, people consider it to be immoral. Teenagers dressing provocatively and dancing in music videos doesn' directly hurt anyone, but many people consider it immoral. Arguments could be made that these things hurt society, but mostly only because they lower the moral standrads of society. The same argument could be made for homosexuality. As for the people that do think homosexuality is immoral, if they're Christians, I think they would give Biblical scripture as their reasoning for coming to this determination. The Old Testament specifically says that you should not lay down with a man as with a woman because it is an abomination. If you are a Christian who believes that the Bible gives you guidance on how to live your life, then that's a pretty clear statement about homosexuality.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I do not lay down with men as I do with women ;-)

Cheers Torsten

Sure?
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...i?post=243868#243868

If they have a reason to do so, I`ll argue against that, otherwise I consider that as immoral as shown in #85.

How can moral be the reason for itself?


Can we take that as final prove, that gay marriage is a religious issue?

I often wonder, based upon what right religious people expect others to follow their commands.

Cheers Torsten

"Can we take that as final prove, that gay marriage is a religious issue?

I often wonder, based upon what right religious people expect others to follow their commands."

What you can take it as is evidence that in certain cases, religion plays a part in how people decide if homosexuality is immoral or not. Don't read anything into it that isn't there. There are plenty of arguments to be made against gay marriage that have reasons other than morality involved. those arguments have already been made time and time again, and I'm not going to repeat them again. You can also understand that religious people don't want you to "obey their commands", but they obviously would prefer that society reflect their belief system, just as you would like society to reflect your beliefs. Theirs are based in religion, yours are based in whatever you developed your ideas from.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)