3 ms·

It's instructive how quickly you decide that public opinion is worthless when you don't have it on your side. The reason I don't address the rest of your point

• cookiecaper 14y ago
  I disagree! I established in the OP that marriage is not a right. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge any difference between "existing with black skin" and "choosing to enter a consensual sexual relationship with a person of the same sex". One of these components requires a much larger degree of energy and initiative than the other. One of these is the result of an individual making a conscious decision to do a thing. On top of that, I am not advocating any removal of rights from gay people. Marriage is not a right; it's a social program the state undertakes because it believes it has a reason to encourage permanent heterosexual coupling. The question isn't "do you hate gay people and hope they die?", but "do you think the government should encourage permanent homosexual coupling?" I don't believe sodomy should be criminalized. If two adults want to engage in homosexual activity, it is within their rights to do so. This DOES NOT mean that it is automatically a good idea for the government to grant special rights, privileges, and endorsement to that relationship. I don't believe it should be legal to own other people, and I'm not sure where my argument implies that I do. You're the only one who has mentioned race or slavery. It seems that it's just your go-to demonization attempt for people with whom you disagree on this matter. Self-direction and autonomy IS a natural right, unlike marriage, and natural rights should be preserved. We can debate slavery more if you really think it's necessary, I guess. I am opposed to slavery. Perhaps you can demonstrate a true, substantive link between not believing the government should give homosexual couples special positive benefits and believing that black people shouldn't be able to self-direct. "I don't like either belief" is not legitimate. You're correct that the question "Should the state encourage permanent homosexual coupling?" typically boils down to "Do you believe homosexuality is a a socially beneficial behavior that should be encouraged among those inclined to practice it?" For me, the answer is no. Nevertheless, this debate is built upon from pretty seriously false and shallow pretenses by both sides -- I'm hoping to demonstrate that there can be a reasonable mode of disagreement and that someone can't immediately be considered stupid for failing to want to encourage homosexual behavior. Reasonable persons can disagree on the matter. >Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position I would hardly consider any of my arguments "destroyed", and as I've pointed out multiple times, popular support is not a major component in my rationale for opposing gay marriage, or anything else, really. If it were, would I be here on HN getting myself downvoted all the time? I have already explained where public opinion factored into the post I posted. Perhaps you should re-read that explanation until you understand it. >I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours. This statement proves that you know very little of my religious inclinations. You may want to stop making presumptions like this soon -- it hasn't served you very well so far.
  • captainbeef 14y ago
    >I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge any difference between "existing with black skin" and "choosing to enter a consensual sexual relationship with a person of the same sex". One of these components requires a much larger degree of energy and initiative than the other. One of these is the result of an individual making a conscious decision to do a thing. No. The correct comparison is 'existing with a particular skin colour' and 'existing with a certain sexual orientation'. One does not take more of a conscious effort than the other. The follow on arguments for whether certain colour mixes or sexual orientations should be allowed to marry are separate. Homosexuality is a socially beneficial bahaviour is as much as, people exist that are gay. Human nature makes it so. Therefore they should be treated equally.
    • cookiecaper 14y ago
      >Homosexuality is a socially beneficial bahaviour is as much as, people exist that are gay "People exist that are alcoholic" "People exist that are pedophiles" "People exist that are depressed" "People exist that are kleptomaniacs" "People exist that are obese" It seems every group desperately searches for a biological genesis of their ills these days, so that they can divert culpability. Just because certain people exist doesn't mean the behaviors that would flow from their "natural" inclinations are socially beneficial. >No. The correct comparison is 'existing with a particular skin colour' and 'existing with a certain sexual orientation'. One does not take more of a conscious effort than the other. In the context of whether the government should promote gay coupling, one takes far more effort. People are unchangeably and constantly a certain race and discrimination on racial basis occurs regardless of that person's actions. If we accept the narrative that a person is unchangeably and constantly gay from birth to death (which I don't), just as a person is unchangeably and constantly ethnic from birth to death, the gay person still has the option to NOT engage in homosexual action. A black person does not have the option to not engage in blackness. Publicly homosexual couples seeking marriage first must become a couple, then make their coupling public, and then ask the government to give them special privileges. You assert that this takes an identical level of effort as being black or white?
  • DanBC 14y ago
• relocation23 14y ago
  It should be honored in the exact same way as heterosexual relationships, on all levels. :)