@P. Ami
“Listen son, people have provided you with reasons for not applying the word marriage to the coupling of gays. When we present our reasons you dismiss them as being Christian in basis and so irrelevant. When we have told you that we are not Christians you dismiss that on the grounds that we only think as we do because we have been fed the belief to us by Christians.”
You listen, old man/lady…I do not call them specifically Christian in basis and so irrelevant – I call them religious in basis and so irrelevant. The Separation of Church and State does not only apply to Christianity. No one is allowed to force their religious laws onto others.
“The fact is that we have our moral code and our code does not mesh well with yours. We think words have meanings. We believe that institutions have their purpose. We think that the extension of ancient and universal institutions beyond their purpose would demean the institution and unleash the chaos this institution was meant to hold back.”
You have a moral code that stems from your religion and has no place in government.
All this talk about “holding back chaos” is ridiculous. I have no idea what you mean by that – what societal chaos does marriage stop from happening? And how will that societal chaos somehow erupt if gay people of the same sex are allowed to marry each other?
I have heard people saying that gay marriage is a threat to our very civilization. It’s absurd.
“The prevalence of divorce, also argued by the Left and made popular with similar rational as those you present have gone a long way towards confusing our culture and raising nihilistic, fatalistic and narcissistic youth.”
It is not the Left’s fault if, when given the freedom to get divorced, people often choose to do so. You know what the divorce rate really shows? That marriage is a hit or miss institution that isn’t for everybody. Some people just can’t maintain a lifelong relationship.
You also should not pin the prevalence of “nihilistic, fatalistic, and narcississtic youth” (whatever you are referring to by that) on the Left. What, now the Left raised all the children?
But you know the standard answer to this argument about divorce, don’t you? If you want to reduce divorce rates, allow gay people to get married.
“I am presuming to speak for a number of people on this thread, so you all should correct me if I am wrong, but we think you are immature, inexperienced and are taking this conversation a little too personally.”
Why would you presume to speak for a number of people on this thread? I understand that Catalonia and Dave probably share the same opinion as you do, but is there some invisible mob beyond that nodding their heads in agreement when you call me immature? And why appeal to some sort of consensus at all? Does the fact that a bunch of people think I’m immature make me immature? Do we all just vote on it?
“In the realm of thought, majorities do not determine. Each mind is a kingdom, each brain is a sovereign.” –Robert Green Ingersoll
Am I immature because I started swearing when Catalonia told me I deserve to be condescended to? How was that not personal and rude? How is Catalonia insisting, beyond my protestations, that I am actually a woman not personal and rude? How is it not a personal attack to call me insane and confused, as both you and Catalonia have done?
“You need to read a bit about the meaning of the separation of church and state. It does not mean that folk cannot or should not get their moral code from religion. It means that the government cannot sponsor or be sponsored by churches or other religious communities. Elected officials, on the other hand, can be sponsored by any American who would like to contribute.”
Actually, it says “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. When Congress decides that the definition of marriage that stems from a few religions in this country is legally binding, they are RESPECTING the establishment of religion.
I never said that it meant people “cannot or should not get their moral code from religion” (although I do ultimately believe that, as a personal matter, they shouldn’t). You have misinterpreted what I said. I said that their religion should not be a part of government, ESPECIALLY when the particular religious doctrine (“marriage is between a man and a woman”) has no rational justification outside of the religion. It does not stand on its own merits. It is a solely religious belief.
It also reduces the amount of liberty homosexuals have. You’re telling me I am “taking this too personally”. But when one group of people takes away the freedoms of another group for no good reason, that pisses me off. It is immoral and discriminatory to do such a thing. I don’t like seeing freedom reduced without a good reason.
“Catalonia may or may not be more intelligent them myself. What is definitely true is that they posted pretty much what I was thinking before I had time to do so myself. It is this precise sort of wasteful, melodramatic and inaccurate thrust at our character which makes a conversation with you tedious. To be frank, I would rather have the option of deferring to more intelligent, more talented and more energetic folk then myself. It seems that all three of us who are bothering to argue with you are of about similar quality in mind, give or take. You can use that opening at your discretion.”
I apologize for stating such a thing. I stepped out of line there. I was trying to provoke you to respond to my post that was directed at you, because the argument between you and I has taken a different course than the one between Catalonia and I. It was rude.
“You are like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail and there is nothing to be gained from hacking off any other idea you have presented.”
I love that movie (it is actually titled “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”). But I am not like him. He is irrational. My points are logically sound. Your points against gay marriage all rest on a religious conviction (and I’m not saying it’s Christianity).
Neither you nor Catalonia have been able to “hack off” any of the ideas I have presented.
You can have your traditional view of marriage. That is fine. No one is trying to take that away from you – no one is attacking the free exercise of your religion, whatever it may be, we are just trying to correct a wrong. Your traditional view of marriage should not be forced onto everyone else by the law.
You do realize that the power to grant marriage liscenses comes from the state and not the churches, right? This is a critical point in my argument that marriage is a secular and not a religious institution. I’m not interested in forcing the churches, synagogues, and mosques to marry gay people when they are opposed to it – that would be an abridgement on their religion. I want the courts to allow gay people to get married legally, from a judge or a church that is not opposed to gay marriage.
I admit there is little ground for opposing the idea of a “civil union” that confers all the same rights and priveleges that a marriage confers. If the terminology is what you object to, then there’s no reason to have the argument. So, are you against civil unions that confer all the same rights and benefits as marriage?
“Others have made your points before and it didn’t convince me then. You have obviously heard our points before and they seem like non-points to you. Let it be.”
I can’t do that. I cannot give up trying to convince you. This is because your opinion is currently in the majority. Nothing will change if I can’t get you to change your opinion.
