Marriage is a civil right in the US

so, they should be able to enter into legal contracts defining themselves and their partners as a state-recognized family unit, but they can't get "married?" what's the difference?or are you saying that they should be able to enter into all legal contracts except marriage?or are you saying, "i don't care, just don't let them in the church?"

---

i much prefer the "argument by clapton" proof of god.

---

i heard more than enough of this line of wankery in my postmodern philosophy class.he didn't say there are no absolutes. he said that morality is not universal. those are two very different statements. we can say what is morally right and wrong for us to do. while trying to make this look a contradiction, you forget that this is a very simple principle.treat others how you would like to be treated.if there IS a universal moral principle, that is it.

---

no, it's not. our system of slavery in this country was, because it was largely race-based. but biblical slavery was not.however, i'll make up for ck's slack. while slavery in and of itself is not the same as bigotry, genocide is awful close:

quote:

---

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

​

Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

---

---

ok. ok.why are these two practices legal? what objective harm do they actually have? give me a real-world effect. do it in HOW exactly? would we be forced to stop getting married?

---

which one? such as being recognized by the state as a family unit.(that is actually what the debate is over, i'm not just being a smartass. the state recognition is the bit that allows proper tax filing, insurance coverage, wills, etc.) how, specifically, is it mocking marriage? do you think that gay people are just thumbing their noses at marriage, or what? i meant in the context of getting married in a church. sorry for not being clear.

---

why? you said that they were incapable of normal sex -- which is an ACT. which is funny, because the bible defines it in terms of acts too. evidently you are mistaken. it's not obvious. please provide some logic.

---

is that a significant reason to not allow gay marriages, though? if a man and a woman owned a business, they could just as easily do the same thing.

---

well, yeah -- but the point is that it's not a situation unique to gay marriage or even caused by gay marriage at all. the "mockery" exists already.

---

i have a few questions i'd like answered, as well. i'm sure faith feels she's already answered, but i'm not satisfied that specifics have been given to explain how exactly gay marriage is a threat to normal marriage, what objective harm it would do, and how exactly it will end marriage (and society) as we know it.

---

"i only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot."t-shirt hell.aside from the moderately amusing fact that society likes lesbians, or at least the fake kind, the religious objection is mostly against two men. while leviticus says that men laying with men is an abomination, it makes no such mention of women. though as someone is bound to point out, one of paul's epistles makes a statement or two that includes women as well.

---

then perhaps it is you, and others that would do something similar, that are really making a mockery of marriage. but two consenting adults who really want to enter into a state-sanctioned and binding contract expressing their love and commitment for each other are not.

---

double-standard. the potential exists in straight marriage too. explain? i'm confused. what don't you like, specifically? what would you prefer?

---

and that makes us heterosexual. frankly, i kind of find all sex gross at some level -- i'm just naturally drawn to the opposite gender in a way even less explainable than "i find gays icky."but, we have to understand that this is a personal preference that varies from person to person in direction and degree. and that our government and laws do not exist to enforce personal preferences.if you find the idea of being married to someone of the same gender icky, the solution is simple. don't marry someone of the same gender. but we can't look over at our neighbors and say "i think what you're doing is disgusting" and try to get it outlawed. not when no objective harm is being done to anyone, on any reasonable standard, and people are just living their own lives.added by edit: exactly.Edited by arachnophilia, : added further agreement

---

it's a little hard to group those two together. while i suppose both argue for government to protect rights (social contract theory), hobbes seems to like monarchy, and argues that rights come out of neccessity and fear of violent death (as the alternative to society). locke seems to like (or rather inspire) democracies, and argues that rights are natural, innate, or even god-given, and that we draft governments to protect those rights and our properties, not our lives. yes, this is a very good point, and a bit that would easily distinguish locke from hobbes. hobbes argued that government exists to protect us from human nature. locke argued that government existed to protect property and rights. hobbes' definition might include protecting us from ourselves. (i'm not sure, i haven't read hobbes...) while this is most likely rhetorical, let me add to it by saying that definition of personal rights extends only as far as the next person. we have our rights to live and do as we please, but not to infringe upon the rights of others. conservatives, therefor, cannot say that they have a right to protect themselves from others doing something that does not even affect them. the argument is two-fold: a) gays getting married in no way harms anyone else, or violates anybody's rights. b) you do not have the right to restrict the rights of others.further, i find it even more ironic that the "conservatives" are proposing an amendment on the federal level to outlaw gay marriage. real conservatives are for smaller federal government, with less authority, and "states' rights." meaning that the real conservative view should be that the states should be allowed to make their own laws on the matter.

---