The costs of gay marriage

[Gameface]

Let's be clear about something. There are gay people who want to be married. If force wasn't being used to stop them then they'd go ahead and do it. This debate is about whether or not we as a society want to continue to participate in the use of force against these individuals, or if we should allow them to conduct their personal lives as they see fit.

Several are saying we should continue to exert force against people to prevent them from acting in the way they choose. Their actions will injure no one. Our actions as a society to deny them their freedom cause real tangible damages to them in a variety of ways.

I would say since we as a society are actively injuring a portion of our society the threshold for justification should be high.

Are there any significant justifications for our actions as a society? Is the sole justification that it is a violation of the predominant moral beliefs? Is that a valid justification? Is that enough of a justification?

 

[colton]

Without additional government resources to weed out those who are infertile, too old or simply don't want kids, it is reasonable to assume that a hetero marriage may result in a pregnancy. If your solution is to start a new program to monitor all hetero married couples to determine if they are fertile is a waste of money and resources. A gay couple is not getting pregnant. Period.

Thank you, well said.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Here's my thought on the matter. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. People who I consider to be prophets, seers, and revelators (aka the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) have said as much. Now, does that mean gay people and other supporters of gay marriage are bad people? Of course not. Are there enough arguments that can be made to persuade the courts to keep marriage as being between a man and a woman? We'll find out soon enough. Either way, I'll still go about living my life trying to improve myself day by day and trying to be respectful of everyone.

This type of **** is infuriating.

"I think you are less than. Are you a bad person? No, just less."

Yeah, keep on improving yourself. Please.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Abuse?

You'd be surprised the hurt and pain your "opinion" has on 13% of the population, I'll bet.

 

[Stoked]

This type of **** is infuriating.

"I think you are less than. Are you a bad person? No, just less."

Yeah, keep on improving yourself. Please.

And you keep on trying to actually understand what people are saying...

 

[nightmare3983]

This type of **** is infuriating.

"I think you are less than. Are you a bad person? No, just less."

Yeah, keep on improving yourself. Please.

I happen to believe one can be against gay marriage while still strongly respecting people who support it. If you don't feel that way, great.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I think the onus is on you, since you're the one using such charged words such as "bigot". Read my posts earlier in the thread. YOU prove that those arguments also apply to interracial marriage. It's clear to me that they don't.



It was the "that has no functional or practical purpose" part of your statement that was incorrect. That is, I'm against gay marriage, but for reasons that have functional and practical purposes.



That's a complete straw man.

...

OK, I started typing out a line-by-line response to the rest of your post, but frankly I don't have the time. I'll jump to the end.



So, do you REALLY feel that the words "intolerant" and "bigoted" are interchangeable? Are they REALLY synonyms in every sense? Do they REALLY have the same connotations?

I will freely admit I am intolerant of gay marriages. I will deny that my reasons for being intolerant of them are related to bigotry. Your claim that I am a bigot by definition is both ludicrous and impolite. And just plain dumb.

Your explanation for your position is just as obnoxious as OB's. Even though I agree with OB, he's obviously not getting through to you, as you are not to him. I get your statements on what you believe, I think, and your responses to inquiry boggle my mind.

Responding with simply, "No your wrong." with absolutely no explanation makes no sense.

OB has been very polite IMO in this discussion. I don't think you have at all. In fact, in any discussion that involves the slightest criticism of the Mormon religion you turn into the biggest jerk on this board.

That aside, I commend you on admitting your intolerance. Hopefully, one day you won't be so proud of it.

 

[Stoked]

I happen to believe one can be against gay marriage while still strongly respecting people who support it. If you don't feel that way, great.

Very much love a sinner but not the sin.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Absolutely. That is, I want to be on record as being opposed to gay marriage. If that makes me crazy, then so be it.

But this whole "wrong side of history" argument is completely fallacious, by the way. Of all the arguments I hear from the pro gay marriage people, it's definitely among the ones I respect the least.
https://wisdomandfollyblog.com/2012/08/23/the-hidden-fallacies-of-the-wrong-side-of-history/

Nice blog.

 

[Scat]

You'd be surprised the hurt and pain your "opinion" has on 13% of the population, I'll bet.

How about the hurt and pain that your "opinion" has on any segment of the population? Do you care? Meh.

 

[One Brow]

Is that fair? I would hate to call someone out directly.

Fine by me. If those words reflect your honest opinion, then I have no problem with you offering them.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2013/04/02/unfairly-labeled/

 

[BabyPeterzz]

How about the hurt and pain that your "opinion" has on any segment of the population? Do you care? Meh.

I know you are, but what am I?

You can't make everyone happy, can you?

It's raining cats and dogs out here.