Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[tzor]

Let's start off with the premise, you asked for why the opposition opposes Gay marriage. I have offered thoughts on why they would. Not why I "oppose" (I don't really I just throw out contrary cautions) gay marriage.

The underlined does not follow. Single-parent child rearing is not precluded because homosexual couples can participate in the institution of marriage, properly understood. The "notion" isn't thrown out of the window because there are laws which still uphold a single parent's "representation" of their child... Gay marriage laws don't limit a single-parent's discretion over his or her own child.

You just inverted my argument. My argument was if someone believes that the best environment for a child is a structure with one adult of each gender, they cannot work on their belief because a same gender couple is the exact same equivalent of a mixed gender couple if same gender marriage is legal. It has nothing to do with single parents, who also don't fit the criteria.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's start off with the premise, you asked for why the opposition opposes Gay marriage. I have offered thoughts on why they would. Not why I "oppose" (I don't really I just throw out contrary cautions) gay marriage.

Oh, good clarification! Anyway, what's your personal stance on this issue?

The underlined does not follow. Single-parent child rearing is not precluded because homosexual couples can participate in the institution of marriage, properly understood. The "notion" isn't thrown out of the window because there are laws which still uphold a single parent's "representation" of their child... Gay marriage laws don't limit a single-parent's discretion over his or her own child.

You just inverted my argument. My argument was if someone believes that the best environment for a child is a structure with one adult of each gender, they cannot work on their belief because a same gender couple is the exact same equivalent of a mixed gender couple if same gender marriage is legal. It has nothing to do with single parents, who also don't fit the criteria.

Yeah, I'm still not getting what you're saying. How's this:

Person X's Argument
1. The best environment for a child is a heterosexual, married couple.
2. A homosexual, married couple cannot provide the best environment.
3. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized,
4. then the "not-best" kind of married couples will be allowed to provide an environment for their kids.
5. Therefore, same-sex marriage must be prohibited.

So far so good?

[tzor]

Oh, good clarification! Anyway, what's your personal stance on this issue?

Personally, I would like to strip every "privilege" of "marriage" away from the legal definition itself; return the notion of marriage to the realm of religion and not the state, and return everything to the realm of allocated rights and contract law. I'll grant you the traditional right of a spouse to refuse to testify against their spouse would be hard to put into a purely civil contract, but it's the only marital right I don't see the gay community pushing for.

Yeah, I'm still not getting what you're saying. How's this:

Person X's Argument
1. The best environment for a child is a heterosexual, married couple.
2. A homosexual, married couple cannot provide the best environment.
3. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized,
4. then the "not-best" kind of married couples will be allowed to provide an environment for their kids.
5. Therefore, same-sex marriage must be prohibited.

So far so good?

Still not there. I'm saying that some people believe that both a male and a female role model needs to be present for the "best environment." One can argue that a mixed gender married couple (remember, we are talking about adoption, sex has nothing to do with anything at this point) fits the criteria, but that a couple of the same gender does not. It's a complex argument, given the complex relationship that children establish with their parents as they grow up and given that the whole notion of "best environment" is hardly something that can be measured, but it is an argument some make.

Now there is always the counter counter argument; at what point does the perfect become the enemy of the good? Or in other words at what point does the best environment become a curse because the not best environment is clearly better than the current (institutional) situation? It's not always obvious.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

Thus, reinforcing their opinion that "both a male and a female role model needs to be present for the "best environment.""?
(I'd imagine that some who hold your version of the argument do actually hold these implicit assumptions.)

Anyway, it's an interesting argument--about "mixed gender married couples" fitting the criterion--albeit they may both be biologically male or both biologically female.


The fundamental problem is that the criteria for "best" are never clearly laid out. And if someone is pressed to explain "best," I bet you some of them will balk at saying what they truly believe, "teh gayness is gonna git dur kids! That's bad!" And if bad bigotry plays no role from the anti-samesex position, then they still have to control for cognitive bias in these matters in order to strengthen their case about what is best for the kids.

When faced with this challenge (which has yet to be successful), then it becomes apparent that the anti-samesex arguments hold no ground--unless of course being bigoted and eschewing the control for cognitive bias is deemed (somehow) morally good.

[premio53]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

Thus, reinforcing their opinion that "both a male and a female role model needs to be present for the "best environment.""?
(I'd imagine that some who hold your version of the argument do actually hold these implicit assumptions.)

Anyway, it's an interesting argument--about "mixed gender married couples" fitting the criterion--albeit they may both be biologically male or both biologically female.


The fundamental problem is that the criteria for "best" are never clearly laid out. And if someone is pressed to explain "best," I bet you some of them will balk at saying what they truly believe, "teh gayness is gonna git dur kids! That's bad!" And if bad bigotry plays no role from the anti-samesex position, then they still have to control for cognitive bias in these matters in order to strengthen their case about what is best for the kids.

When faced with this challenge (which has yet to be successful), then it becomes apparent that the anti-samesex arguments hold no ground--unless of course being bigoted and eschewing the control for cognitive bias is deemed (somehow) morally good.

No one is any more bigoted than you are with your pro-homosexual, anti-Christian beliefs. You have no absolute moral standards other than to look down your self-righteous nose at those who hold a different opinion than you do. nuff said

[BigBallinStalin]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

Thus, reinforcing their opinion that "both a male and a female role model needs to be present for the "best environment.""?
(I'd imagine that some who hold your version of the argument do actually hold these implicit assumptions.)

Anyway, it's an interesting argument--about "mixed gender married couples" fitting the criterion--albeit they may both be biologically male or both biologically female.


The fundamental problem is that the criteria for "best" are never clearly laid out. And if someone is pressed to explain "best," I bet you some of them will balk at saying what they truly believe, "teh gayness is gonna git dur kids! That's bad!" And if bad bigotry plays no role from the anti-samesex position, then they still have to control for cognitive bias in these matters in order to strengthen their case about what is best for the kids.

When faced with this challenge (which has yet to be successful), then it becomes apparent that the anti-samesex arguments hold no ground--unless of course being bigoted and eschewing the control for cognitive bias is deemed (somehow) morally good.

No one is any more bigoted than you are with your pro-homosexual, anti-Christian beliefs. You have no absolute moral standards other than to look down your self-righteous nose at those who hold a different opinion than you do. nuff said

Interesting. According to you,

1. Being "pro-homosexual" precludes one from having Christian beliefs.

Gee, what do other Christians think about that?
(Seems like premio is hiding his prejudice under his religion of brotherly love.)

Wait a minute. "Brotherly love"... "being pro-homosexual"... And you seem very preoccupied with fantasizing about the homosexual preferences of other men... Would you agree that your distorted 'Christian' beliefs allow for homosexual incest*?

*We can relax the restraints on 'brotherly' if you forbid incest.

On the topic of absolute moral standards, you have proven yourself incapable of responding sensibly, so is it wise for you to hold such strong opinions about moral standards? I'm sorry, but given your past positions, we can safely answer, "No, you aren't being wise."

[premio53]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

Thus, reinforcing their opinion that "both a male and a female role model needs to be present for the "best environment.""?
(I'd imagine that some who hold your version of the argument do actually hold these implicit assumptions.)

Anyway, it's an interesting argument--about "mixed gender married couples" fitting the criterion--albeit they may both be biologically male or both biologically female.


The fundamental problem is that the criteria for "best" are never clearly laid out. And if someone is pressed to explain "best," I bet you some of them will balk at saying what they truly believe, "teh gayness is gonna git dur kids! That's bad!" And if bad bigotry plays no role from the anti-samesex position, then they still have to control for cognitive bias in these matters in order to strengthen their case about what is best for the kids.

When faced with this challenge (which has yet to be successful), then it becomes apparent that the anti-samesex arguments hold no ground--unless of course being bigoted and eschewing the control for cognitive bias is deemed (somehow) morally good.

No one is any more bigoted than you are with your pro-homosexual, anti-Christian beliefs. You have no absolute moral standards other than to look down your self-righteous nose at those who hold a different opinion than you do. nuff said

Interesting. According to you,

1. Being "pro-homosexual" precludes one from having Christian beliefs.

Gee, what do other Christians think about that?
(Seems like premio is hiding his prejudice under his religion of brotherly love.)

Wait a minute. "Brotherly love"... "being pro-homosexual"... And you seem very preoccupied with fantasizing about the homosexual preferences of other men... Would you agree that your distorted 'Christian' beliefs allow for homosexual incest*?

*We can relax the restraints on 'brotherly' if you forbid incest.

On the topic of absolute moral standards, you have proven yourself incapable of responding sensibly, so is it wise for you to hold such strong opinions about moral standards? I'm sorry, but given your past positions, we can safely answer, "No, you aren't being wise."

The only Christians that defend homosexuality are those who reject the Bible. I have shown quite conclusively that you believe there are no absolute moral standards other than your own prejudiced opinion. Here a sample. Is it morally wrong to indulge in watching pornography? Yes or no. Why not? Very simple question.

[Symmetry]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

[premio53]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

[Symmetry]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

[premio53]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

Thus, reinforcing their opinion that "both a male and a female role model needs to be present for the "best environment.""?
(I'd imagine that some who hold your version of the argument do actually hold these implicit assumptions.)

Anyway, it's an interesting argument--about "mixed gender married couples" fitting the criterion--albeit they may both be biologically male or both biologically female.


The fundamental problem is that the criteria for "best" are never clearly laid out. And if someone is pressed to explain "best," I bet you some of them will balk at saying what they truly believe, "teh gayness is gonna git dur kids! That's bad!" And if bad bigotry plays no role from the anti-samesex position, then they still have to control for cognitive bias in these matters in order to strengthen their case about what is best for the kids.

When faced with this challenge (which has yet to be successful), then it becomes apparent that the anti-samesex arguments hold no ground--unless of course being bigoted and eschewing the control for cognitive bias is deemed (somehow) morally good.

No one is any more bigoted than you are with your pro-homosexual, anti-Christian beliefs. You have no absolute moral standards other than to look down your self-righteous nose at those who hold a different opinion than you do. nuff said

Interesting. According to you,

1. Being "pro-homosexual" precludes one from having Christian beliefs.

Gee, what do other Christians think about that?
(Seems like premio is hiding his prejudice under his religion of brotherly love.)

Wait a minute. "Brotherly love"... "being pro-homosexual"... And you seem very preoccupied with fantasizing about the homosexual preferences of other men... Would you agree that your distorted 'Christian' beliefs allow for homosexual incest*?

*We can relax the restraints on 'brotherly' if you forbid incest.

On the topic of absolute moral standards, you have proven yourself incapable of responding sensibly, so is it wise for you to hold such strong opinions about moral standards? I'm sorry, but given your past positions, we can safely answer, "No, you aren't being wise."

The only Christians that defend homosexuality are those who reject the Bible. I have shown quite conclusively that you believe there are no absolute moral standards other than your own prejudiced opinion. Here a sample. Is it morally wrong to indulge in watching pornography? Yes or no. Why not? Very simple question.

Premio, I'd love to answer that question, but you have to reciprocate by answering my question.

Anyway, be careful on that soapbox. We wouldn't want you to fall down and break your neck. Well, maybe God might, but that's another debate--am I right or am I right?

[Symmetry]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

[premio53]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Me too.

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anything of that actually happened?

Lesbian Pair Wins Ruling Over Refusal of Ceremony

A lesbian couple from New Jersey who were barred from holding a civil union ceremony last year at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group won a legal victory on Monday.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled that the refusal of the church group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square mile of beachfront property in Ocean Grove, near Asbury Park, to rent the spot to the couple violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.

While the ruling decisively favors the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, it does not end the case, which has become a major symbol in the gay rights battle in New Jersey and beyond.

That's not about gay marriage.

That's a different matter related to discriminating against gender and skin color and stuff--in relation to particular services/goods. Marriage is wrapped within a different context--which in the courts may differentiate it enough, so that discrimination becomes legitimate in the eyes of the law (e.g. the Boy Scouts, Hooters, etc.).

So we shouldn't conflate the differences here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Did he just say that you're bigoted against bigots?

[Symmetry]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Me too.

Excellent- point out where you think Jesus objected to homosexuals.

[premio53]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Did he just say that you're bigoted against bigots?

Like I said. It cuts both ways. You are as bigoted as they come.

[Symmetry]

Aye- it's an argument that always bothers me. The "It's not bigotry, I'm religious" line.

It cuts both ways doesn't it.

I agree- it hurts Christians, which oddly enough, I dislike. Suggesting that refusing to accept people as equals is a core tenet of being a Christian is at best a distortion cloaking bigotry.

And you are a bigot for looking down your nose at Christians that hold a different view.

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Did he just say that you're bigoted against bigots?

Yup

[BigBallinStalin]

All praise to Allah for we have differentiated between good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Premio, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the latter category. With the power of Christ compelling you, one day you may join the former category.

[premio53]

All praise to Allah for we have differentiated between good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Premio, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the latter category. With the power of Christ compelling you, one day you may join the former category.

Once again. you have no standard to go by except your own personal prejudice. Is pornography morally wrong? Yes or no. Why not?

[Symmetry]

All praise to Allah for we have differentiated between good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Premio, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the latter category. With the power of Christ compelling you, one day you may join the former category.

Once again. you have no standard to go by except your own personal prejudice. Is pornography morally wrong? Yes or no. Why not?

I thank you for clarifying how odd the opposition to gay marriage has become.

[premio53]

All praise to Allah for we have differentiated between good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Premio, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the latter category. With the power of Christ compelling you, one day you may join the former category.

Once again. you have no standard to go by except your own personal prejudice. Is pornography morally wrong? Yes or no. Why not?

I thank you for clarifying how odd the opposition to gay marriage has become.

You're welcome. My question is very simple. An atheist cannot answer it with anything other than his own prejudiced opinion.

[Symmetry]

All praise to Allah for we have differentiated between good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Premio, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the latter category. With the power of Christ compelling you, one day you may join the former category.

Once again. you have no standard to go by except your own personal prejudice. Is pornography morally wrong? Yes or no. Why not?

I thank you for clarifying how odd the opposition to gay marriage has become.

You're welcome. My question is very simple. An atheist cannot answer it with anything other than his own prejudiced opinion.

Start a new thread and I'll answer.

[premio53]

All praise to Allah for we have differentiated between good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Premio, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the latter category. With the power of Christ compelling you, one day you may join the former category.

Once again. you have no standard to go by except your own personal prejudice. Is pornography morally wrong? Yes or no. Why not?

I thank you for clarifying how odd the opposition to gay marriage has become.

You're welcome. My question is very simple. An atheist cannot answer it with anything other than his own prejudiced opinion.

Start a new thread and I'll answer.

Go ahead and start a thread and explain why there is nothing wrong with it. I'm sure you will get a great round of applause. I would be interested.