4 ms·

> Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways?

• majormajor 9y ago
  > We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way. But that doesn't seem like a reliable guiding principle on its own, e.g. mixed race marriage. This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides, so from a least-harm perspective, it seems better to, as far as the state goes, pick the people who probably don't have a choice in the matter (I'm inclined to believe that homosexuality is primarily an innate thing, because I never chose to be straight, and can't imagine choosing to be homosexual) versus the beliefs of certain religious groups. And the history of racial discrimination in the US points the way towards the reasoning behind equal-service type requirements for businesses. Any problems caused seem much smaller than the (proven!) potential for abuse if the laws weren't there.
  • Veelox 9y ago
    > This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides Agree completely on that point. As much as I don't like the outcome, I think you are right on what the legal outcome should be based on the cultural viewpoint that homosexuality is innate. A) Interracial Marriage is immoral. B) Homosexual Marriage is immoral. C) Remarriage (after divorce) is immoral. Part of my disagreement is that I see B and C as related while you (and most of America) see A and B related. Alas, it seems like there is no way to convince the country of my viewpoint so I am stuck putting up with it.
• majormajor 9y ago
  At a meta-level: the discussion in this thread is one that I would hope would be welcomed anywhere that encouraged discussions of religion/politics in the workplace (I also understand workplaces that just don't want any of that). But sadly, civility is not something I'm widely accustomed to in these debates, so I understand the general defensiveness that accompanies most comments on homosexuality. Which is why I'd favor workplaces not to encourage that sort of discussion at all. Though even then you'd expect a certain amount of prevailing winds, which is why I brought up Mark Noll - the dominant forms of Christianity in the US have largely retreated from making intellectual arguments, so in most intellectual circles you don't many. My answer to "why are universities so liberal" is "because religion went off and built a parallel education system because it didn't respond well to the challenges of evolution and other modern science."