Author Topic: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 14517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #105 on: July 12, 2012, 12:15:58 PM »
Not sure about how polygamy would work, but animals are not consenting adults.

We've been through this.

Offline Fourth Horseman

  • Posts: 67
  • Gender: Male
  • I know all about the honor of god, Mary Jane.
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #106 on: July 12, 2012, 12:49:12 PM »
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.

I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well.  There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.

Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?


With the freedom to choose religion also comes freedom from religion.  Non-Christian gays should not be subject to the "rules" of the bible, or any other religious scripture for that matter.

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #107 on: July 13, 2012, 07:36:34 AM »
animals are not consenting adults.
...hold on.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #108 on: July 13, 2012, 07:39:45 AM »
Not sure what's wrong with that statement...unless you're implying that humans are animals. But you know what I meant. Or are you telling me to "hold on" because that view might change in the future?

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5187
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2012, 07:51:54 AM »
HE'S SAYING THAT GIANT SQUIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSENT.  :dangerwillrobinson:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2012, 08:01:22 AM »
Well thank you for your support, but legal or not, things in that aspect aren't looking good for me.  :lol

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5187
  • Kabbalah
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2012, 08:02:38 AM »
Try moving to Japan.  I hear tentacles are all the rage over there.  :evilmonkey:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #112 on: July 13, 2012, 08:07:21 AM »
I'm sitting here, and I cannot think of a response to that statement. :lol

Offline Vivace

  • Posts: 664
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #113 on: July 13, 2012, 09:37:53 AM »
In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion.

I'd say this is a very hasty argument to make.  Both religion and marriage predate recorded history, and you couldn't say reliably that one came before the other; almost as soon as hominids got to the proverbial scene, they had religious ideas.  This isn't to say that marriage definitely came afterward; however, you couldn't possibly support the view that marriage came before government and religion, especially since religion is (understandably) one of the first things we bothered to do.

Our perception of marriage is to take it as it is presented to us now and find someway to fit that peg into history. We do this by making the statements: marriage is about two consenting adults. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about responsibility. But can we find some semblance of marriage outside of human reason? For example we see certain animals act in ways that have similarities to our practice of marriage: eagles that are monogamous,  mother and father species taking care of their young until the young can survive (responsibility). However we as a species define marriage beyond this by using words like consent thus limited the idea of marriage to a more rational like idea. Like Darwin who would argue that humans and animals are shown to possess similar traits in order to show a progress of evolution from the animal state to the human state, would it be a viable argument/hypothesis to say that marriage predates the moment of our reason and has evolved into something that lends itself to a more rational idea? I don't think it's a hasty argument if we want to view marriage as an evolving species, but even with this argument then I would have to concede that marriage is a trait that needs to change as we do. Here we have another question then, when does something cease to be what it original was after so many metamorphesis. For example, take a box. One day the box changes color, but it is still a box. Another day, it develops legs, but it is still a box. Arms, a mouth, a tail form and the body changes to be more of a rectangle. Is it still a box? If we can at least agree that it is no longer a box then we must present ourselves with the challenging question, if marriage is shown to exist before reason in one form and continues to evolve over time, at what point must we concede that it is no longer a marriage? Furthermore who has the right to make that claim? A box is no longer a box once we define it outside the terms of a box. The main argument with marriage is how we are defining it, but is this definition an evolution of marriage or are we trying to simply make it more clear and this new definition has always been there. I would argue the former.

Quote
The challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?

A slippery slope argument, you say?  How wonderful!
[/quote]

A doctor comes up to you and says if you keep to your diet you will have a heart attack. Is this a slippery slope argument? A lawyer tells you unless you plea bargain you will be sentenced to death. Is this a slippery slope argument? An economist declares because the economy has improved jobs will increase in the future. Is this a slippery slope argument? It bothers me that people like to throw statements around like a slippery slope argument, straw man, circular reasoning, etc, but fail to understand how an argument which could appear as such, actually has a well formed argument past it. For example, let's go back in history to when the lady spilled coffee on her lap. If I were to say, the outcome of this legal case will now be the camel's nose in the tent opening up kinds of ridiculous lawsuits and a victimless society. Based on your conviction that my statement above is slippery slope you would have to make the same logical leap for this as well. But we know that once a precedent is made, people will move in on that precedent to open it even wider than it was before.  To declare that same-sex marriage is an equal right will lead to others asking their idea of marriage is an equal right. Polygamy is practiced today and these people want to see it legal. Just as the woman spilling coffee on her lap lead to her receiving millions of dollars led to frivolous lawsuits, the equal rights fight to same-sex marriage will lead others to fight for similar rights. How can you believe this is a slippery slope when same-sex advocates point to their fight being the same as the civil rights movement? Are we saying that the civil rights movement leading to same-sex marriage is a slippery slope argument? A slippery slope argument is only that unless the chain is completed. Because I am 37, Obama will lose the election. There is no chain of events leading to this conjecture. however because I am 37 there will be 37 candles on my birthday cake. Whether or not 37 candles appear on my birthday cake is irrelevant, the conclusion itself can be drawn from the opening statement.

Quote
Here's the rub:  we "secularists", to the extent that that is in fact a group of people who share similar viewpoints, are actually logical human beings.  There is, in fact, no secularist agenda to speak of; what we want is for everybody to have equal rights, regardless of any competing religious viewpoints.

That is an agenda, regardless if you don't want it to be. Also your argument that secularists share similar viewpoints can be related to a religious group such as Catholics who have similar viewpoints about morals and can also be called logical human beings. I never made the assertion that secularists are not logical so I would appreciate it you didn't force the issue.

Quote
What we have found is that marriage offers people certain economic perks; as is well-documented in this thread, you're better off economically if you're married.  This is fine, except that there's an entire group of people that can't get married by definition - homosexuals.  By the very nature of marriage, this right is systematically denied to homosexuals who want to get married, and we "secularists" think that is gross.

It's a fair point too, but as I stated above, when does marriage stop becoming a marriage? Governments support marriage because it supports a community. If the government wants to change their view of marriage based on the governmental idea of it supporting community they have every right to make that change. To assume this definition moves past the government idea though is like assuming American Democracy must therefore change the definition of democracy as a whole. Since that hasn't happened, I see no reason to make the government's idea of marriage the concept of marriage outside government, especially since we can establish that marriage is a part of human nature. If this is the case we can't put the cart before the horse.

Quote
How will we keep from re-redefining marriage in the future?  Namely because there's no logical reason to push for anything else.  As soon as you can marry someone of your own gender, things are equal; marriage is now defined as any consenting person forming a loving union with any other consenting person, which is perfect because the right of marriage is denied to nobody.  Polygamy or animal-human marriage don't come with the package because this definition is fine, and because polygamy and zoophilia have always been illegal in this country anyway.  Even "secularists" concede that there's no reason to redefine marriage to include these things, as there's no logical or social support for them.

I'm not quite too sure how you can openly state with confidence that because polygomy is illegal it is therefore wrong and hold onto an idea that same-sex marriage is right when it was illegal in the past. How can you justify your position if polygomy is made legal in certain states (namely Utah is my guess)? You are going to have to reconcile your position on what makes an equal right especially in the light that polygomy can be argued to be logical and a social support in a similar manner that same-sex marriage is. As you stated above marriage is now defined as between two consenting adults. What will you do if that position is yet again challenged? People are willing to go so far as to accept same-sex marriage under a certain umbrella but are unwilling to accept other like ideas under this same umbrella.

Quote
Also, don't be scared of re-definition.  Contrary to your belief, marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life.  In fact, I recall a pretty significant change made to marriage not long ago which is, in my opinion, analogous to the situation we're in now.  And people didn't start having sex with goats once this decision was made, mind.

You forget once this decision was made same-sex couples didn't start to marry. But you also fail to recognize that same-sex marriage is an event related to this event in that most advocates such as yourself use the civil rights movement as a means to support it. That in itself provides the necessary motion for society to move in a similar direction. It may not happen for a while, however because polymogy is practiced, because there are actual examples of people marrying animals, I find it amazing that people would assume that such a case will never come up. My prediction is once same-sex marriage is legal in the majority of states, polygamy will be brought to the table. Arguments will be made for it and those who seem to be against it will have to defend their definition of marriage in the same way those against are arguing. Do you truly believe that same-sex marriage is the end all for marriage, that it cannot be changed past that? If so, how do you reconcile this with your statement marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life? Can you not therefore concede that if marriage is to open up to polymogy that you must therefore accept it as an unchanging eternal fact of life?



Quote
Right now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority.
I'd argue that it's a good thing when people start to care more about equality than what they think their god might have to say on the topic.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but when people start to think that religion is antithesis to equality that is a bad thing and congruous to bigotry and primarily not true but due to past events I under no circumstances will have that discussion here.

Quote
I cannot begin to articulate how frustrating it is that this....this....... *deep breath* ......this.....um......  ::)  argument ::)  .....*more deep breaths* has to come up in every thread on this topic.   :facepalm:

I cannot begin to articulate how frustrating it is that this....this......*deep breath*.....this......umm...... ::) response ..... *more deep breaths* has to rear its ugly head in every thread on this topic.
"What kind of Jedis are these? Guardians of peace and justice my ass!"

"Ha ha! You fool! My Kung Fu is also big for have been trained in your Jedi arts why not!"

Offline Vivace

  • Posts: 664
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #114 on: July 13, 2012, 09:50:14 AM »
I want to point something out.

Quote
HE'S SAYING THAT GIANT SQUIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSENT.  :dangerwillrobinson:

Quote
HE'S SAYING THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY.  :dangerwillrobinson: (I did change the word but the concept is the same)

Quote
HE'S SAYING THAT BLACK AND WHITES SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY. :dangerwillrobinson:

Quote
HE'S SAYING THAT NOBLES AND PEASANTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY.  :dangerwillrobinson:

History has shown that this statement in itself has always been presented. For anyone to think that we as a human race might not ever argue that animals can consent or have the ability to consent is in my mind the same ridiculous claim made back in antiquity that nobles and peasants should be able to marry. I'm not saying that I agree or that the statement itself is logical, but that the statement itself is congruous to it. In each case it was seen as completely illogical and unethical and unsocial to allow this and in each instance it was illegal but happened anyways. Most laws are made on the basis that it is to stop behavior. You wouldn't make a law that a human being cannot travel through time without a permit unless it was a necessary law. Polygamy is illegal but it is still practiced. Same-sex marriage was illegal yet it was still practiced. The practice is what led to the law and the successful removal of that law is the start of it becoming overall legal. This was the same process of events that led nobles and peasants to marriage, black and whites and now same-sex marriages. To assume that no argument is going to made now for polygomy or for animals is a bit naive. It may not happen though in our lifetime. I mean how many people are alive now when black and whites were allowed to marry back in '24? We can balk at its ridiculousness, but past generations did the same with same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and beyond.
"What kind of Jedis are these? Guardians of peace and justice my ass!"

"Ha ha! You fool! My Kung Fu is also big for have been trained in your Jedi arts why not!"

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4605
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #115 on: July 13, 2012, 10:23:15 AM »
If there comes a time when human beings are trying to make it legal for a man to marry a giant squid, that is the time to argue about whether or not a man should be allowed to marry a giant squid.  For now, the issue is same-sex marriage.  It seems reasonable to me to focus on the merits of same-sex marriage rather than considering the merits of possible future proposals. 

Don't argue that there's a line that shouldn't be crossed, argue where the line is. 

I mean, argue whatever you want, of course.  I just find it hard to take 'if we let this go, where do we draw the line' type arguments seriously.  The question is whether or not the line should be drawn here
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3386
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #116 on: July 13, 2012, 10:45:20 AM »
^^^^^Good point.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #117 on: July 13, 2012, 11:12:12 AM »
In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion.

I'd say this is a very hasty argument to make.  Both religion and marriage predate recorded history, and you couldn't say reliably that one came before the other; almost as soon as hominids got to the proverbial scene, they had religious ideas.  This isn't to say that marriage definitely came afterward; however, you couldn't possibly support the view that marriage came before government and religion, especially since religion is (understandably) one of the first things we bothered to do.

1 Our perception of marriage is to take it as it is presented to us now and find someway to fit that peg into history. We do this by making the statements: marriage is about two consenting adults. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about responsibility. But can we find some semblance of marriage outside of human reason? For example we see certain animals act in ways that have similarities to our practice of marriage: eagles that are monogamous,  mother and father species taking care of their young until the young can survive (responsibility). However we as a species define marriage beyond this by using words like consent thus limited the idea of marriage to a more rational like idea. Like Darwin who would argue that humans and animals are shown to possess similar traits in order to show a progress of evolution from the animal state to the human state, would it be a viable argument/hypothesis to say that marriage predates the moment of our reason and has evolved into something that lends itself to a more rational idea? I don't think it's a hasty argument if we want to view marriage as an evolving species, but even with this argument then I would have to concede that marriage is a trait that needs to change as we do. Here we have another question then, when does something cease to be what it original was after so many metamorphesis. For example, take a box. One day the box changes color, but it is still a box. Another day, it develops legs, but it is still a box. Arms, a mouth, a tail form and the body changes to be more of a rectangle. Is it still a box? If we can at least agree that it is no longer a box then we must present ourselves with the challenging question, if marriage is shown to exist before reason in one form and continues to evolve over time, at what point must we concede that it is no longer a marriage? Furthermore who has the right to make that claim? A box is no longer a box once we define it outside the terms of a box. The main argument with marriage is how we are defining it, but is this definition an evolution of marriage or are we trying to simply make it more clear and this new definition has always been there. I would argue the former.
Quote
Quote
The challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?

A slippery slope argument, you say?  How wonderful!

A doctor comes up to you and says if you keep to your diet you will have a heart attack. 2 Is this a slippery slope argument? A lawyer tells you unless you plea bargain you will be sentenced to death. 3 Is this a slippery slope argument? An economist declares because the economy has improved jobs will increase in the future. 4 Is this a slippery slope argument? It bothers me that people like to throw statements around like a slippery slope argument, straw man, circular reasoning, etc, but fail to understand how an argument which could appear as such, actually has a well formed argument past it. For example, let's go back in history to when the lady spilled coffee on her lap. If I were to say, the outcome of this legal case will now be the camel's nose in the tent opening up kinds of ridiculous lawsuits and a victimless society. Based on your conviction that my statement above is slippery slope you would have to make the same logical leap for this as well. But we know that once a precedent is made, people will move in on that precedent to open it even wider than it was before.  To declare that same-sex marriage is an equal right will lead to others asking their idea of marriage is an equal right. 5 Polygamy is practiced today and these people want to see it legal. Just as the woman spilling coffee on her lap lead to her receiving millions of dollars led to frivolous lawsuits, the equal rights fight to same-sex marriage will lead others to fight for similar rights. How can you believe this is a slippery slope when same-sex advocates point to their fight being the same as the civil rights movement? Are we saying that the civil rights movement leading to same-sex marriage is a slippery slope argument? A slippery slope argument is only that unless the chain is completed. Because I am 37, Obama will lose the election. There is no chain of events leading to this conjecture. however because I am 37 there will be 37 candles on my birthday cake. Whether or not 37 candles appear on my birthday cake is irrelevant, the conclusion itself can be drawn from the opening statement.

Quote
Here's the rub:  we "secularists", to the extent that that is in fact a group of people who share similar viewpoints, are actually logical human beings.  There is, in fact, no secularist agenda to speak of; what we want is for everybody to have equal rights, regardless of any competing religious viewpoints.

That is an agenda, regardless if you don't want it to be. Also your argument that secularists share similar viewpoints can be related to a religious group such as Catholics who have similar viewpoints about morals and can also be called logical human beings. I never made the assertion that secularists are not logical so I would appreciate it you didn't force the issue.

Quote
What we have found is that marriage offers people certain economic perks; as is well-documented in this thread, you're better off economically if you're married.  This is fine, except that there's an entire group of people that can't get married by definition - homosexuals.  By the very nature of marriage, this right is systematically denied to homosexuals who want to get married, and we "secularists" think that is gross.

It's a fair point too, but as I stated above, when does marriage stop becoming a marriage? 6 Governments support marriage because it supports a community. If the government wants to change their view of marriage based on the governmental idea of it supporting community they have every right to make that change. To assume this definition moves past the government idea though is like assuming American Democracy must therefore change the definition of democracy as a whole. Since that hasn't happened, I see no reason to make the government's idea of marriage the concept of marriage outside government, especially since we can establish that marriage is a part of human nature. If this is the case we can't put the cart before the horse.

Quote
How will we keep from re-redefining marriage in the future?  Namely because there's no logical reason to push for anything else.  As soon as you can marry someone of your own gender, things are equal; marriage is now defined as any consenting person forming a loving union with any other consenting person, which is perfect because the right of marriage is denied to nobody.  Polygamy or animal-human marriage don't come with the package because this definition is fine, and because polygamy and zoophilia have always been illegal in this country anyway.  Even "secularists" concede that there's no reason to redefine marriage to include these things, as there's no logical or social support for them.

I'm not quite too sure how you can openly state with confidence that because polygomy is illegal it is therefore wrong and hold onto an idea that same-sex marriage is right when it was illegal in the past. How can you justify your position if polygomy is made legal in certain states (namely Utah is my guess)? You are going to have to reconcile your position on what makes an equal right especially in the light that polygomy can be argued to be logical and a social support in a similar manner that same-sex marriage is. As you stated above marriage is now defined as between two consenting adults. What will you do if that position is yet again challenged? People are willing to go so far as to accept same-sex marriage under a certain umbrella but are unwilling to accept other like ideas under this same umbrella. 7

Quote
Also, don't be scared of re-definition.  Contrary to your belief, marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life.  In fact, I recall a pretty significant change made to marriage not long ago which is, in my opinion, analogous to the situation we're in now.  And people didn't start having sex with goats once this decision was made, mind.

You forget once this decision was made same-sex couples didn't start to marry. But you also fail to recognize that same-sex marriage is an event related to this event in that most advocates such as yourself use the civil rights movement as a means to support it. That in itself provides the necessary motion for society to move in a similar direction. It may not happen for a while, however because polymogy is practiced, because there are actual examples of people marrying animals, I find it amazing that people would assume that such a case will never come up. My prediction is once same-sex marriage is legal in the majority of states, polygamy will be brought to the table. Arguments will be made for it and those who seem to be against it will have to defend their definition of marriage in the same way those against are arguing. Do you truly believe that same-sex marriage is the end all for marriage, that it cannot be changed past that? If so, how do you reconcile this with your statement marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life? Can you not therefore concede that if marriage is to open up to polymogy that you must therefore accept it as an unchanging eternal fact of life? 8



Quote
Quote
Right now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority.
I'd argue that it's a good thing when people start to care more about equality than what they think their god might have to say on the topic.

9 I'm sorry but when people start to think that religion is antithesis to equality that is a bad thing and congruous to bigotry and primarily not true but due to past events I under no circumstances will have that discussion here.

1 Okay, come back to me when you've proven marriage came before religion.
2 No.
3 No.
4 No.
5 No reason to detract from the validity of same-sex marriage as presented.
6 I am sick and tired of saying this, so I'll say it just one more time.  No one here has offered any evidence that governments recognize marriage to support community or childbearing, and every single argument against homosexual marriage I've heard requires that premise to be true.  Someone should really offer that evidence.
7 Different umbrellas.
8 I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that polygamy is a right that should be granted to Americans.  After same-sex marriage is legalized, everybody will be able to marry one other person, which is equality.  I'm not going to rule out that polygamy will never be legal, because I don't really care one way or the other about it.  When the pro-polygamy people knock on my door and ask me to vote in favor of legalizing it, I will listen to their case, and I'll vote if they're convincing and logical.  I haven't heard a convincing, logical defense of polygamy, though.  This is all very beside the point, however, and I think it's telling that you're choosing to spend all your time discussing polygamy rather than the issue at hand.
9 I'm sorry you feel that way, but religion is one of the major causes of inequality in the world today.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 11:17:57 AM by theseoafs »

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #118 on: July 13, 2012, 11:12:42 AM »
We can balk at its ridiculousness, but past generations did the same with same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and beyond.

Yeah, because past generations had shitty beliefs that society eventually grew out of. And that's the problem I have with these sort of "well if we allow this then maybe at some point something you believe in will be done away with as well!" arguments. It assumes that humanity will never reach a point where it realizes that whatever bullshit I believe in today is just that, bullshit, and move on past it. It assumes that the beliefs we hold now are the best for everyone for the rest of humanity's existence, regardless of any philosophical or scientific progress made in the future that changes society's perspective on the issue.

Previous societies would balk at the idea of nobles and peasants marrying just as much as a person marrying an animal because they held ignorant as fuck beliefs that we, thankfully, did away with as time passed on. Same with interracial marriage. If future society's eventually decide that there is, in fact, merit in allowing whatever stupid comparison someone wants to come up with, then, honestly, I couldn't be more happy in the long run, because the idea that 2012 America is the pinnacle of human progress in social acceptance is depressing as hell.

Offline wolfandwolfandwolf

  • Gym Rat
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Gender: Male
  • Really Scrappy Player
Re: A Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2012, 09:29:57 AM »
Not sure what's wrong with that statement...unless you're implying that humans are animals. But you know what I meant. Or are you telling me to "hold on" because that view might change in the future?
I was being a troll. Merely echoing the whole consent argument and how silly it is for someone to even bring it up.