re: Those against gay marriage- you're dumb (long)

quote:

---

Ultimately, I wish there was no such thing as state sponsored or secular marriage. Marriage is a sacrament and institution of the church. No reason the government should be involved AT ALL in marriage, but that's the libertarian point of view.

---

Its a word. It can mean different things to different people.

The state adopted the word but uses it differently. There is no religious rhetoric in state marriage documents. Its a tax thing. That's all gay people want.

Churchs will always be able to keep their form of marriage as safe from the homosexual plague as they want.

I understand your argument. The things you listed are illegal because of morality. But why is homosexuality immoral? It doesn't hurt anyone. It's only immoral in the sense that it's against some religions. It's immoral to torture an animal, and everyone can agree to that. If there wasn't religion at all, I would think most people would agree that it's not right to torture an animal for sadistic pleasure. The animal is being hurt in this situation. No one is hurt in homosexuality.

Now, polygamy is a different situation but I don't know enough to discuss why it is illegal or why it should be legal.

quote:

---

Now, polygamy is a different situation but I don't know enough to discuss why it is illegal or why it should be legal.

---

It is only immoral to religions. (or extra moral for some )

Polygamy is as old as the human race.

If someone wants more than one wife and can find women crazy enough to buy in to that, let them be miserable

quote:

---

Because it's an issue of morality, which the state has always had an interest in regulating. Why are there laws against torturing animals? Why are there laws against polygamy? Because the state has an interest in maintaining the moral integrity of the society. It wasn't until probably the second half of the twentieth century that we started to seriously question this idea. And it's disastrous. As a Catholic, I cannot possibly allow the positive sanctioning of gravely immoral behavior. And that's what this is. It's the state supporting immoral behavior. It's one thing to let people do what they want to do. It's quite another for the state to provide the means and protect gravely immoral behavior. Moreover, the state has an interest in protecting the institution that maintains the culture and society. Gay couples have nothing to do with this as such. They only have something to do with it when they go out of the way to take something from some other heterosexual coupling (namely progeny). The question shouldn't be "What's the argument against gay marriage?" The question should be "What's the argument for gay marriage?" The onus is on the person who is trying to make such a blatantly radical change that no society, in the history of ever, has ever accepted as rational or good. Even societies that allowed for gay relationships and gay sex, etc.

---

I'm glad our country isn't run by what you and your religion deems "moral". And it never will be.

DNRTFL

quote:

---

its really not and it will probably be the next thing in line in the marriage debate

---

There's no difference?

None at all?

I clicked just to see the downvotes. Lol OT.

quote:

---

I clicked just to see the downvotes. Lol OT.

---

Downvotes are for the messenger, not the message, IMO.

quote:

---

he things you listed are illegal because of morality. But why is homosexuality immoral? I

---

Sure, there's no "victim" like the others, which is why I am strongly against countries like Russia and the ME punishing homosexuality by law.

As far as why it's immoral, it always denies a child a father or a mother. It destroys the familial construct of society, among many things, and we see the result. Look at the AA community as to how bad things get with a poor family construct. Look towards the lower demographics as to how bad things get with no family construct. By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. It's morally wrong to force public people to accept something against their religious beliefs, IMO. We already see business owners being forced to provide goods and services when we should let the free market decide that. You're forcing business owners to work to provide a service against their will. That is not moral, my friend.