4 ms·

“Gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights as straight people” is a moral position? Which commandment is that one? It’s a wedge issue used to whip conser

“Gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights as straight people” is a moral position? Which commandment is that one? It’s a wedge issue used to whip conservative voters, not a moral issue. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you must fight to prevent heathens from filing taxes jointly.

DuskStar 7y ago
Well, many conservative christians would say that gay people already had the same legal rights as straight people - that being the right to marry (+have sex with, etc) another person of the opposite sex. To them, conflating "the right to marry other men" with that would be like conflating it with "the right to marry children". Is "should pedophiles be legally allowed to have sex with and marry the people they are attracted to" a moral issue to you? I mean, the kid consented! Yes, most of us would say that's different. But why it's different is a moral position - and so to some people, it's really not different. (Also, "the correct answer isn't a moral position, while the incorrect answer is an immoral position" is a bit of a contradiction. If "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" is an immoral thing to believe or act on, then you're acknowledging the choice of positions as being a moral one. "I should be able to kill all the people I see" is also a moral position, of course)
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  No, you’re completely wrong here. The reason men must be able to marry men is not a moral rationale, it’s a legal one. There is a well established legal doctrine that says you can’t make laws that discriminate on the basis of sex without some sex-based reason. There’s no sex-based reason for why I should be able to have a woman at my side in the hospital but not a man. You don’t need a womb or breasts to to speak to the doctor on my behalf. That’s ridiculous. If my sister can choose to have a man by her bedside, so should I be allowed to. That’s equal protection. There is no similar protection for children. Literally no one is able to choose a random 12 year old boy to make decisions for them in the hospital. And that’s fine because there is no equal protection for kids. Nor should there be. They are legally wards of their parents, not adults. They very intentionally do not have the same protection under the law that their parents do. None of this has anything to do with morality, it has to do with equal protection under the law.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    That's a very good argument for why gay marriage should be allowed, and IIRC the one that the supreme court followed. That doesn't mean that there aren't still people who would challenge the morality of such. Morals and legality are different. Marijuana is federally illegal - does that make it immoral to produce/distribute/possess/consume? I would say no, and a large part of the country would say the same. Similarly, I think a ton of people would freak the fuck out if the supreme court legalized marrying prepubescent children - it might now be legal, but that doesn't make it moral. The moral position that people fighting gay marriage have is that the current caselaw is wrong, and that equal protection shouldn't be interpreted that way.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      You keep indicating at some hypothetical argument from morality. Can you just lay it out? First you claimed both sides were relying on a purely moral argument, but you seem to have moved on from that after I gave the constitutional argument for gay marriage. Now you’re arguing there’s a moral argument against gay marriage, but I can’t fathom it. Can you be more specific?
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > “Gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights as straight people” is a moral position? Which commandment is that one? I've been trying to explain how it's a moral position for some people, in response to this statement of yours. I'm not sure how to make that argument in a way that would be convincing to you, in large part because it's not convincing to me. And I suppose we may be getting some wires crossed - for a lot of people in the world, there doesn't have to be a justification for a moral belief - or at least not one you would accept. "My religious authority told me" or "my parents told me" might not be as acceptable in the society we live in today, but they've all been extremely successful throughout history.

DuskStar 7y ago

Well, many conservative christians would say that gay people already had the same legal rights as straight people - that being the right to marry (+have sex with, etc) another person of the opposite sex. To them, conflating "the right to marry other men" with that would be like conflating it with "the right to marry children". Is "should pedophiles be legally allowed to have sex with and marry the people they are attracted to" a moral issue to you? I mean, the kid consented! Yes, most of us would say that's different. But why it's different is a moral position - and so to some people, it's really not different. (Also, "the correct answer isn't a moral position, while the incorrect answer is an immoral position" is a bit of a contradiction. If "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" is an immoral thing to believe or act on, then you're acknowledging the choice of positions as being a moral one. "I should be able to kill all the people I see" is also a moral position, of course)

erikpukinskis 7y ago
No, you’re completely wrong here. The reason men must be able to marry men is not a moral rationale, it’s a legal one. There is a well established legal doctrine that says you can’t make laws that discriminate on the basis of sex without some sex-based reason. There’s no sex-based reason for why I should be able to have a woman at my side in the hospital but not a man. You don’t need a womb or breasts to to speak to the doctor on my behalf. That’s ridiculous. If my sister can choose to have a man by her bedside, so should I be allowed to. That’s equal protection. There is no similar protection for children. Literally no one is able to choose a random 12 year old boy to make decisions for them in the hospital. And that’s fine because there is no equal protection for kids. Nor should there be. They are legally wards of their parents, not adults. They very intentionally do not have the same protection under the law that their parents do. None of this has anything to do with morality, it has to do with equal protection under the law.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  That's a very good argument for why gay marriage should be allowed, and IIRC the one that the supreme court followed. That doesn't mean that there aren't still people who would challenge the morality of such. Morals and legality are different. Marijuana is federally illegal - does that make it immoral to produce/distribute/possess/consume? I would say no, and a large part of the country would say the same. Similarly, I think a ton of people would freak the fuck out if the supreme court legalized marrying prepubescent children - it might now be legal, but that doesn't make it moral. The moral position that people fighting gay marriage have is that the current caselaw is wrong, and that equal protection shouldn't be interpreted that way.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    You keep indicating at some hypothetical argument from morality. Can you just lay it out? First you claimed both sides were relying on a purely moral argument, but you seem to have moved on from that after I gave the constitutional argument for gay marriage. Now you’re arguing there’s a moral argument against gay marriage, but I can’t fathom it. Can you be more specific?
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > “Gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights as straight people” is a moral position? Which commandment is that one? I've been trying to explain how it's a moral position for some people, in response to this statement of yours. I'm not sure how to make that argument in a way that would be convincing to you, in large part because it's not convincing to me. And I suppose we may be getting some wires crossed - for a lot of people in the world, there doesn't have to be a justification for a moral belief - or at least not one you would accept. "My religious authority told me" or "my parents told me" might not be as acceptable in the society we live in today, but they've all been extremely successful throughout history.