4 ms·

Sorry, I have to write a second reply because it really makes me think: what would a possible moral stance against gay marriage even be? I can't imagine a reaso

Sorry, I have to write a second reply because it really makes me think: what would a possible moral stance against gay marriage even be? I can't imagine a reasonable moral argument against gay marriage? Unless you think homosexuals being together is immoral, but then marriage would be irrelevant (if that was somebody's opinion, they would probably fight on a lower level, like putting gays into jail or whatever, not prevent them from marrying)? I'm not really well versed in the typical pro and contra arguments, so this made me curious.

wtbob 12y ago
The State has no business being involved in morality, so outlawing homosexual activity is outside the State's remit. The moral argument against homosexual pseudomarriage is that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage. Marriage is not about a couple's (or a group's) feelings about one another. It's not a way that society shows approval. It is, rather, the formation of the most basic unit _of_ society (I'd argue that the individual is not really a unit of society), and is the means by which children are produced and brought up. (And yes, there's plenty of heterosexual pseudomarriage too) But, given that these are all moral arguments, my preference is for the State to absent itself entirely rather for it to take a side and do further damage to an almost destroyed institution.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Its about building a family, which is more than one person. To call its purpose child-raising is silly; folks stay married after the kids are gone. A family can be a grandmother and a grandkid; a Mom and a child and a grandchild; three kids raising one another after the folks die in an accident; two Moms and three adopted kids (like my cousins are). Its arrogant and small-minded to reject any family that doesn't look like yours, and worse yet to try to legislate other families out of existence. In fact, if marriage is 'almost destroyed' as you posit, then we need more, new styles of family if kids are to have a chance to grow up fed and clothed and loved enough.

wtbob 12y ago

The State has no business being involved in morality, so outlawing homosexual activity is outside the State's remit. The moral argument against homosexual pseudomarriage is that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage. Marriage is not about a couple's (or a group's) feelings about one another. It's not a way that society shows approval. It is, rather, the formation of the most basic unit _of_ society (I'd argue that the individual is not really a unit of society), and is the means by which children are produced and brought up. (And yes, there's plenty of heterosexual pseudomarriage too) But, given that these are all moral arguments, my preference is for the State to absent itself entirely rather for it to take a side and do further damage to an almost destroyed institution.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its about building a family, which is more than one person. To call its purpose child-raising is silly; folks stay married after the kids are gone. A family can be a grandmother and a grandkid; a Mom and a child and a grandchild; three kids raising one another after the folks die in an accident; two Moms and three adopted kids (like my cousins are). Its arrogant and small-minded to reject any family that doesn't look like yours, and worse yet to try to legislate other families out of existence. In fact, if marriage is 'almost destroyed' as you posit, then we need more, new styles of family if kids are to have a chance to grow up fed and clothed and loved enough.