Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
Think of all the harm gays have endured over the years and still to this day, and you casually dismiss it as "pulling at heart strings" and "making nothing more than an emotional argument". Unbelievable.
You just did it again.
You're not making a logical argument, you're making an emotionally-charged one. You're saying I should support gay marriage because of all the "harm" gays have endured, as if this was the compensatory round on a game show or something. In all seriousness, you don't even know my views on gay marriage. And you certainly can't deny the tactics that liberals use wrt victims and props:
- Healthcare: line up sick people, the poor, those who are denied coverage, those who can't afford coverage, people with cancer, etc.
- Social programs: Put a few 75 year old women up there and have them talk about choosing between dog foods for dinner.
- Tax Reform: Put some working poor class and middle lower income blue collar individuals on a soap box and have them state that with the proposed changes, millionaires "get" enough money to buy a new Lexus and they only get (literally this time) enough for anew muffler. "They ain't America!"
- Immigration: Line up immigrant after immigrant who tells his or her story of living in a trailer with 12 kids and being abused by the Border Patrol."
This is what Democrats do, Hands. They've been doing it for years. They use people as victims and props.
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
And the "other side" is the same. The only support for their positions is "...because God said so."
If one can make up some authority figure out of thin air to back their position... Well, that's intellectual dishonesty as well. Worse, in fact, since they don't even pretend to base their beliefs on what's best for society.
First, not all opponents of gay marriage have religious reasons. Secondly, what do you mean "make up some authority?" Because, it sounds like you're attacking every believer on this planet. Third, who gets to decide on what's best for society? And who decided that gay marriage was so? You, apparently.
Gay marriage is a complex issue. Like many issues though, it's been polarized and argued from points of extremism on both sides. The only thing I can do is give my beliefs that are based on facts (not the other way around):
>I believe gay marriage is eventually going to be the law of the land. Why? Because in our system, the people eventually get what they want. Polls now show that a narrow majority of the country says they "support" gay marriage. As for me, my position is this: I support civil unions (with all the benefits of marriage according to local, state and federal law). I don't think the government has a right to recognize one union between two people, and not the other.
That said, I don't support calling this "marriage." First, society itself and all major religions have defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman for thousands of years, with very little exception until recently. Therefore, we must accept that allowing gay "marriage" means that we change the definition of the term not just as a government, but as a society.
This, in fact, is what many gay activists are seeking. They want the minority to force the majority of society to change. And that is where I get off the bus so to speak, because changing the definition in society attempts to force me to accept a definition of marriage with which I don't agree based on my religious beliefs.
I don't seek to push those beliefs on others. I have no problem with the government allowing gay couples the same civil benefits. In fact, I think that is right thing to do. But if the government calls it "marriage," it acts as an advocate for society changing it's accepted definition. It also sends the message that religions who don't support gay marriage are wrong. This would be a defacto attack on those religions who don't support calling it "marriage," and in my opinion would violate the 1st Amendment.
There are two other reasons I don't support changing the definition of marriage: One is the root of homosexuality itself. Pro-gay rights folks rightly point out that homosexuality occurs in many animal species. What they fail to point out is that the "cause" of homosexuality in humans has not been shown to be exclusively a biological thing. Some evidence to that fact exists, but the research also shows environment contributes to sexual identity. This means there is at least SOME element of choice overall. My own personal belief is that most gays are "born that way." However, I believe some
really do choose their orientation. This means that all arguments equating being gay to being a certain race are invalid. It's simply not the same, and research shows it. This leads to the last point....
Given the above, we must accept that we're not just changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples....we're changing the definition of marriage based on an element of choice.
This begs the question...for what other
choices will we change the definition? It's a slippery slope argument to be sure, but it's a valid one. For example, some people believe in marrying more than one person. Why not allow that? What if evidence comes to light showing that polygamy has a biological element to it? Given that we changed it for gay marriage, one what grounds can we deny polygamists the right to marry? One what grounds can we deny the right to marry animals for tax benefits alone? It might be an absurd example (well, strike that..it IS an absurd example!), but the point remains. If we do it for one, we have no moral or even legal grounds not to do it for everyone.
All of this points me in the direction of simply calling gay "marriages" civil unions. It avoids the trickiness of government redefining cultural norms. It eliminates the slippery slope arguments, because we're not using the same term. It avoids the problem of redefining the term when an element of choice is involved. It doesn't stomp on others religious beliefs. Most importantly, it gives gays the civil and legal rights they deserve as human beings. And this should be the goal. The goal should not be to alter the fabric of society as we know it.