Gay Marriage Bill Passed in New York's State Government.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd say the change in traditional marriage has far more to do with no-fault divorce and women's rights than anything to do with our queer friends.

Oh quite, I think it has even more to do with contraception and DNA testing though, contrary to popular belief marriage is a bigger legal problem for men than women; as it protects the latter at the inconvenience of the former - or it used to.

And let's not forget that "traditional" marriage is a relatively recent construction.[/quote]

OK, I'll bite...

That used to mean ploygamy and/or what we would consider incest.

Marriate has always been between one man and one woman, Jacob may have had two wives, but he had two seperate marriages, one after the other. Incest has never been cool, medieval tables of blood-relation were very broad-ranging, more so than current laws, and going back further to the Roman period we have the example of Claudius who needed a senatorial dispensation to marry Agrippina because she was his niece (I think niece is right). The exceptions are places like Egypt where the ruler often married his sister on account of claiming to be God, which is a bit different to being like the rest of us.

Read your OT, it's full of it.

It's full of condemnation for it, too. No one said what Lot's daughters did was ok.

Furthermore, throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance, formal marriage was at least as much about property and power as anything else. That's what happens when you have venereal transmission of position and land.

Absolutely, power and inherritence - not love or sexuality. That's my point.

Also, the notion that men are supposed to be faithful and not have whores, mistresses, office wives and travel wives is a relatively recent development.

That's true, but a whore produces bastards, a wife produces sons. You leave one in the gutter and get buried with the other.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's full of condemnation for it, too. No one said what Lot's daughters did was ok.

idk, I think Lemur was right in that the standard in ancient Israel were different.

As I mentioned in the latter part of my previous post, which you have eclipsed onto the last post of the previous page.

Because it took a while to right that...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The union of one man and one woman is not an arbitary legal contract (as PVC would I think argue), but a natural law instituted by God at creation. It is just one of those things that is natural to the human condition. Just remember what Jesus said to the saducees when they accused him of having false teachings on marriage - "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so".

What I would say is that the (physical) union of one man and one woman is the means by which we procreate, and once a man and a woman do procreate they are linked for life by the child they share. You might say that with was a "natural marriag" and our marriage laws are merely fitting the facts of biology into our civil code.

Of course, once you accept that these people are indelably linked through their children the advantages of monogomy (especially for the woman and child) are quite obvious, as is the preferability of having a partner you are compatable with on a more than physical level.

[Lemur]

Remember, when we talk about American conservatives, we are being very vague.

I don't believe I mentioned the word "conservative" even once in this thread, so I'm not clear on whom you are addressing, even though you're quoting me. Defining that slippery word "conservative" sounds like gist for another thread.

The union of one man and one woman is not an arbitary legal contract (as PVC would I think argue), but a natural law instituted by God at creation.

Ah, the natural law school of thought. To which I would respond, how many gay men, women and animals does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point?

Furthermore, is oral sex between a married couple part of "natural law"? How about anal sex? Are sterile heterosexual couples part of "natural law"? Again, filler for another thread, but invoking the contemporary Catholic understanding of "natural law" seems quite iffy to me.

And yes, of course, you can read the Gospels as a repudiation of the OT if you like. Makes you wonder why the two are bundled together in that inconsistent library we call The Bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, the natural law school of thought. To which I would respond, how many gay men, women and animals does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point?

Furthermore, is oral sex between a married couple part of "natural law"? How about anal sex? Are sterile heterosexual couples part of "natural law"? Again, filler for another thread, but invoking the contemporary Catholic understanding of "natural law" seems quite iffy to me.

None of that bears on my point, does it? That marriage is about licensing a specific sexual act with specific consequences. That isn't to say that all other sexual practice is wrong (different debate), merely that it is irrelevent to "marriage" as an institution.

[Strike For The South]

but a natural law instituted by God at creation. It is just one of those things that is natural to the human condition

But If their is no God than this is invalid

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't believe I mentioned the word "conservative" even once in this thread, so I'm not clear on whom you are addressing, even though you're quoting me. Defining that slippery word "conservative" sounds like gist for another thread.

It was response to ACIN who I quoted first, since he was suggesting that the religious folk in question were just opposing things because they were opposed to change.

Ah, the natural law school of thought. To which I would respond, how many gay men, women and animals does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point?

lol, that's a cheeky little jibe there Lemur.

In any case, your argument doesn't really disprove natural law theory any more than the fact that God created people who turn out to be murderers and such.

Furthermore, is oral sex between a married couple part of "natural law"? How about anal sex?

Well I am not part of the "sex is only for reproduction" school of thought but I am not honestly sure about those.

Are sterile heterosexual couples part of "natural law"? Again, filler for another thread, but invoking the contemporary Catholic understanding of "natural law" seems quite iffy to me.

Is a homosexual orientation without acting on it OK? No. Because it's not just about acts its about intentions. Jesus says being angry at someone makes you a murderer, and that looking upon a woman with lust makes you an adulterer.

And yes, of course, you can read the Gospels as a repudiation of the OT if you like. Makes you wonder why the two are bundled together in that inconsistent library we call The Bible.

I have no idea what made you think that this is what I did.

[Fragony]

I don't understand why the 'it's not natural' argument is so easily dismissed. I think I can understand our more conservative members. Marriage is also a commitment to a future, gay couples don't have that for obvious reasons, when considering that it is way too much to ask to think of it in the same way imho. Imho opinion gay activists are tresspassing, they want others to pretend there is such a thing as the existance of something that simply cannot be. Pretend. And they aren't asking they demand it.

[Lemur]

In any case, your argument doesn't really disprove natural law theory any more than the fact that God created people who turn out to be murderers and such.

Much like Intelligent Design, Natural Law is not what most people mean when they say "theory," in that it is not falsifiable, testable, repeatable or disprovable. So it isn't even wrong. It is founded on—and cannot exist apart from—faith. So it has no bearing on: atheists, Taoists, Buddhists, non-Catholic Christians, agnostics, Muslims (Fragony bait!), pantheists, pagans, Jews ... the list goes on and on. (Note that many other religions have their own unique reasons for condemning the queers amongst us.) So while you are free to read up on the current Catholic literature of Natural Law, it has little relevance to the population as a whole, and should hold no position in forming law.

Question: If it is wrong in some meaningful sense to have homosexual urges even if you don't act on them, how is a gay man or woman to live? How are they to reach out to God? Or are they shut out from the divine?

Marriage is also a commitment to a future, gay couples don't have that for obvious reasons

By the same line of reasoning, a woman with a hysterectomy should be barred by law from marriage, as should a sterile man. Furthermore, straight married couples that fail to reproduce should be prosecuted for fraud, since they are not engaging in the sole reason for marriage, by your logic.

Tell the gay man who can't inherit from his lifelong partner how he's playing pretend. Tell the lesbian who can't visit her dying mate in the hospital how it's pretend. And ask yourself, who is harmed by these people being allowed to marry? Please be specific.

Finally, one of my favorite conservatives has a good column up today: I was wrong about same-sex marriage

I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

[Fragony]

Conservatives aren't my thing, but why not tGay-activists are much more hostile towards conservatists than the other way around, they want it gone and will destroy what they can find because of a particularly foul smell of narcism

[Lemur]

Conservatives aren't my thing, but why not tGay-activists are much more hostile towards conservatists than the other way around, they want it gone and will destroy what they can find because of a particularly foul smell of narcism

If I'm reading this correctly (and that's a big if) you're saying that gay-rights activists are hostile to conservatives, but not the other way around, and gay activists are narcissists. That's your argument, is it?

As for hostility, all you need do is read any comment thread on any conservative-leaning website where someone has spoken in favor of gay marriage, and you will read appalling levels of hostility, as PJ attested earlier. Exemplum gratum. I do not think hostile internet posters are representative of all conservatives, and I am not condemning opponents of gay marriage as bigots, but—but!—this sort of thing puts your unsourced claim in question. If you have any sort of evidence to back up your assertion, I'd like to see it.

Your narcissism point borders on madness and incoherence. All humans are narcissists in some degree; are you saying that the desire to form lifelong monogamous unions is some particularly pernicious form of self-regard? That is measurably worse amongst gays than straights? What are you saying?

[Rhyfelwyr]

But If their is no God than this is invalid

U mad bro?

Much like Intelligent Design, Natural Law is not what most people mean when they say "theory," in that it is not falsifiable, testable, repeatable or disprovable. So it isn't even wrong. It is founded on—and cannot exist apart from—faith. So it has no bearing on: atheists, Taoists, Buddhists, non-Catholic Christians, agnostics, Muslims (Fragony bait!), pantheists, pagans, Jews ... the list goes on and on. (Note that many other religions have their own unique reasons for condemning the queers amongst us.) So while you are free to read up on the current Catholic literature of Natural Law, it has little relevance to the population as a whole, and should hold no position in forming law.

Very cheeky...

Anyway, with natural law its one of these things that boils down to it being self-evident. You do the exact same thing yourself with your own fundamental beliefs, everyone does.

I just think it is significant that I am appealing to a natural, universal law, since thats a lot different from just forcing arbitrary rules on everyone.

Question: If it is wrong in some meaningful sense to have homosexual urges even if you don't act on them, how is a gay man or woman to live? How are they to reach out to God? Or are they shut out from the divine?

Well they are no different from the rest of us in that we are all born predisposed to sin. Then again I am coming at this from a different angle from the typical American Evangelical that will tell you that sin is a matter of personal responsibility. I would say it is not, there's a quote from Luther where he says he committs adultery and murder a thousand times a day and that captures the spirit of the Christian faith as well as anything could.

The point is you do not just say... well I can't help it, and then blame God. It's not about taking responsbility for your actions, its about realising you have none. Why do I sin? Because I am by nature sin! That's right, sin itself... which is why Paul in fact calls sinful acts the fruits of sin. Which is why it is ridiculous to apply Gandhi's old "hate the sin love the sinner" routine to Christianity.

Gays are no different I don't care if they are gay or if they choose to be gay, because we are all born in sin and so they are no different from the rest of us. What I don't like is people saying being gay is OK just because it might be a predisposition and not a choice.

Of course this is all in terms of my own belief system, and ultimately gays don't have to give a damn what I think. And its mutual, they can have their world and I can have mine. Why is this too much to ask?

The thing is they can't do that, its like with immigrants they never leave you alone until everyone is assimilated. And its not even the fault of gays or the immigrants themselves, its always gutmensch as a certain Dutchman would say.

[Fragony]

@Lemur, no, I have no place in their game. Do I have to see it as normal, do you? If your neighbours are a nice gay couple, do you think 'nice couple' or ' nice gay couple'.

[Lemur]

Anyway, with natural law its one of these things that boils down to it being self-evident. [...] I just think it is significant that I am appealing to a natural, universal law, since thats a lot different from just forcing arbitrary rules on everyone.

Ah, my bad, when you start talking about God and Natural Law in the same sentence, I thought you were referring to the Catholic movement, which is a very specific intellectual thing, and often invoked to attack gay marriage. You can see how I got confused, surely, given the topic and your phrasing.

I think your take on natural law fails to apply in any sort of universal way because it rests on a very specific sort of theism. Again, this means it's perfectly valid for you and anyone who shares your faith, but it is irrelevant to the population as a whole.

Gays are no different I don't care if they are gay or if they choose to be gay, because we are all born in sin and so they are no different from the rest of us. What I don't like is people saying being gay is OK just because it might be a predisposition and not a choice.

Try reversing the equation and see how it fits. If homosexuality were the norm, and we all had babies in artificial wombs, how would you feel about your perverse desire to have sex with women? Indeed, if the majority of churches were telling you that heterosexual sex is a sin, and that your urges come from Satan, how would you react? (Note that the vast majority of neurological research suggests that homosexuality is an inborn trait, so this isn't quite as out-there as it may sound.)

[Gays] can have their world and I can have mine. Why is this too much to ask?

The thing is they can't do that, its like with immigrants they never leave you alone until everyone is assimilated. And its not even the fault of gays or the immigrants themselves, its always gutmensch as a certain Dutchman would say.

I dunno, when I start hearing about how the gutmensch are to blame for every ill in society, I figure it's time to wander off to a different thread. Very easy to argue against a person who is (a) not present, (b) can take whatever position you want him to take, and (c) can't argue back. The entire gutmensch thing is the most elaborate, long-running strawman in the history of the Org. How's about we talk to each other, instead of idealized imagined foes?

@Lemur, no, I have no place in their game. Do I have to see it as normal, do you? If your neighbours are a nice gay couple, do you think 'nice couple' or ' nice gay couple'.

Since I am probably one of those gutmensch who are responsible for Everything Bad, I tend to think "nice couple." And I have lived next to several such nice couples. The downside is that they keep up their properties much better than the average straight couple, so there's a bit of pressure there. In fact, I had a divided balcony with a gay couple in Chicago, and it was infuriating. Theirs was always meticulous and perfect. Ours was always a mess. I usually felt as though I was letting the team down.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, my bad, when you start talking about God and Natural Law in the same sentence, I thought you were referring to the Catholic movement, which is a very specific intellectual thing, and often invoked to attack gay marriage. You can see how I got confused, surely, given the topic and your phrasing.

I think your take on natural law fails to apply in any sort of universal way because it rests on a very specific sort of theism. Again, this means it's perfectly valid for you and anyone who shares your faith, but it is irrelevant to the population as a whole.

Well I wouldn't say my views on marriage really come from the 'theism' part so much. Do I need to go over why God/mother nature/x years of natural selection has created a certain framework for sexual relations? It's really obvious but people just forget that.

Try reversing the equation and see how it fits. If homosexuality were the norm, and we all had babies in artificial wombs, how would you feel about your perverse desire to have sex with women? Indeed, if the majority of churches were telling you that heterosexual sex is a sin, and that your urges come from Satan, how would you react? (Note that the vast majority of neurological research suggests that homosexuality is an inborn trait, so this isn't quite as out-there as it may sound.)

I don't know how I would react but in any case that would have nothing to do with whether my predisposition was in itself sinful. I might want to try to pretend it was OK but that doesn't mean that it really would be.

I dunno, when I start hearing about how the gutmensch are to blame for every ill in society, I figure it's time to wander off to a different thread. Very easy to argue against a person who is (a) not present, (b) can take whatever position you want him to take, and (c) can't argue back. The entire gutmensch thing is the most elaborate, long-running strawman in the history of the Org. How's about we talk to each other, instead of idealized imagined foes?

But did I call you one of them, or maybe just in your mind you wanted me to?

The fact is, for activists not liking gayness is sinful. If you don't you will be ostracised. Which I would be fine with but then they want to teach your kids that it is 100% OK. And you can't not let them, because suddenly not teaching their values is child abuse.

[HoreTore]

Not liking? No.

Not tolerating would be the appropriate term.

[Lemur]

Well I wouldn't say my views on marriage really come from the 'theism' part so much. Do I need to go over why God/mother nature/x years of natural selection has created a certain framework for sexual relations? It's really obvious but people just forget that.

And I could form an equally cogent argument about why having a small portion of the population being gay is evolutionarily useful. Your argument, as you stated it earlier, rested on several specifically theistic notions, such as fallen man and so forth. So no, I don't think you've put forward an argument for strictly procreative marriage that can stand on its own without the Almighty propping it up.

But did I call you one of them, or maybe just in your mind you wanted me to?

Exactly my point; you resorted to how the evils of forced assimilation will come from the nebulous, ubiquitous do-gooders who will ruin everything for everyone. Hence my appeal for you not to use the gutmensch in your argument, since it is impossible to refute the fictitious actions of a theoretical group of people. As I said, let's talk to each other, not idealized opponents who conveniently do everything bad we need them to do to buttress our arguments.

The fact is, for activists not liking gayness is sinful. If you don't you will be ostracised. Which I would be fine with but then they want to teach your kids that it is 100% OK. And you can't not let them, because suddenly not teaching their values is child abuse.

Illustrating my point about strawmen rather completely. Suddenly the "activists" won't leave anybody alone, and they have a big agenda that they're going to force on everyone. And there's no way to discuss this because:

1. You have cited no specific action of any sort
2. You have linked to no source or event or person
3. You can ascribe anything you like to "activists," because they're, you know, activists and they do active stuff while being active or something

Total dead end for a conversation. If you're going to bring in third parties to refute them, the least you could do is quote somebody or reference a specific person or event or something, instead of pulling the Fragtastic argumentum ad gutmenschum.

[Kralizec]

If I'm reading this correctly (and that's a big if) you're saying that gay-rights activists are hostile to conservatives, but not the other way around, and gay activists are narcissists. That's your argument, is it?

My guess is that Fragony is thinking about Dutch conservatives and is conflating them with conservatives in general (correct me if I'm wrong)

As far as the conservatives, or opponents of gay rights in the Neth's go (the parties SGP and Christenunie mostly), he's somewhat right. They're generally civil and eloquent when defending their viewpoints. But that's mostly because they're a tiny minority here, and invoking fire & brimstone all the time would turn public opinion against them even more.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And I could form an equally cogent argument about why having a small portion of the population being gay is evolutionarily useful. Your argument, as you stated it earlier, rested on several specifically theistic notions, such as fallen man and so forth. So no, I don't think you've put forward an argument for strictly procreative marriage that can stand on its own without the Almighty propping it up.

"Strictly procreative marriage"... don't remember saying such a thing. The thing is you have the same sort of presumptions because already you are talking about making it "evolutionarily useful", so already you're projecting stuff onto a lot of people that don't share that belief.

Exactly my point; you resorted to how the evils of forced assimilation will come from the nebulous, ubiquitous do-gooders who will ruin everything for everyone. Hence my appeal for you not to use the gutmensch in your argument, since it is impossible to refute the fictitious actions of a theoretical group of people. As I said, let's talk to each other, not idealized opponents who conveniently do everything bad we need them to do to buttress our arguments.

I'm sorry, I just get so excited!

But since I went there...

Illustrating my point about strawmen rather completely. Suddenly the "activists" won't leave anybody alone, and they have a big agenda that they're going to force on everyone. And there's no way to discuss this because:

1. You have cited no specific action of any sort
2. You have linked to no source or event or person
3. You can ascribe anything you like to "activists," because they're, you know, activists and they do active stuff while being active or something

Total dead end for a conversation. If you're going to bring in third parties to refute them, the least you could do is quote somebody or reference a specific person or event or something, instead of pulling the Fragtastic argumentum ad gutmenschum.

The British education system. I was taught it was OK to be gay in health ed classes, so from around age 11+.

If I'm an employer I have to hire them.

If I'm B&B owner I have to let them stay in my house.

You can't escape, the leftist utopia has is all encompassing.

You say you are not one of the gutmensch... so surely you will not defend this?

[HoreTore]

Some people seem to believe that natural means right, and doing what is natural will create harmony. This is wrong.

Let's say somebody kills my sister. What is my natural(or biological if you will) reaction? What action is according to human nature? Vengeance, of course. If somebody kills my sister, the natural response for me to take is to kill the murderer.

This, however, does not in any way lead to harmony or a civilized society. In order for us to live in harmony, we have disregarded the natural and instead introduced something highly unnatural, the justice system.

If you want to prove that "traditional marriage" is good for society, Rhy, you will have to do better than simply point to it being natural.

[HoreTore]

Schools teaches people to tolerate gays.

You can't fire someone for their sexuality, which is completely irrelevant to their job performance.

You can't refuse them lodging.

This is authoritarian to you, Rhy...? Seriously?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And I could form an equally cogent argument about why having a small portion of the population being gay is evolutionarily useful.

You're unlikely to find anyone here who will put serious effort into fighting you on that, but:

Gay not Evil = Gay should marry

does not automatically follow, in the way that:

Gay not Evil = Gay should be allowed to live life

does.

As far as "Narcicims" goes, I think, yes, some homosexual campaigners are intent to disolver marriage as an institution and destroy traditional religion out of personal vindictiveness. For some "Gay Rights" campaigners believing in God makes you evil, just like some "Feminists" actually. It doesn't matter who your God is, or what you actually believe - theism disqualifies you from the human race.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some people seem to believe that natural means right, and doing what is natural will create harmony. This is wrong. Let's say somebody kills my sister. What is my natural(or biological if you will) reaction? What action is according to human nature? Vengeance, of course. If somebody kills my sister, the natural response for me to take is to kill the murderer. This, however, does not in any way lead to harmony or a civilized society. In order for us to live in harmony, we have disregarded the natural and instead introduced something highly unnatural, the justice system. If you want to prove that "traditional marriage" is good for society, Rhy, you will have to do better than simply point to it being natural.

Just because you are naturally vengeful, doesn't mean everyone is.

[Xiahou]

Absolutely, power and inherritence - not love or sexuality. That's my point.

Indeed, I think it's the notion that marriage is some sort of state recognition of love that's the "relatively recent construction". The argument that's often made is what right does the government have to tell people who they can fall in love with. My response is, what does that have to do with civil marriage?

More directly on topic, I would never vote in favor of gender neutral marriage- but I have a hard time caring if NY state, via the legislative process enacts it.
I only get irritated when it's forced by judicial fiat as though it were some constitutional equal protection issue- it isn't.

[HoreTore]

Just because you are naturally vengeful, doesn't mean everyone is.

Yes, because we crtainly don't see blood feuds in areas where the law isn't enforced. /sarcasm

[Rhyfelwyr]

Some people seem to believe that natural means right, and doing what is natural will create harmony. This is wrong.

Let's say somebody kills my sister. What is my natural(or biological if you will) reaction? What action is according to human nature? Vengeance, of course. If somebody kills my sister, the natural response for me to take is to kill the murderer.

This, however, does not in any way lead to harmony or a civilized society. In order for us to live in harmony, we have disregarded the natural and instead introduced something highly unnatural, the justice system.

If you want to prove that "traditional marriage" is good for society, Rhy, you will have to do better than simply point to it being natural.

Maybe the above would be true if we were animals, but I would argue that whether due to God/gaia/evolution, there is also a social aspect to things that comes naturally to humans. Living in society seems to be to be something that is clearly natural for humans to do, and respecting other people by not going on a vengeful murder spree is a part of that.

Schools teaches people to tolerate gays.

You can't fire someone for their sexuality, which is completely irrelevant to their job performance.

You can't refuse them lodging.

This is authoritarian to you, Rhy...? Seriously?

Yes it is. I should be able to have my own little world with my own values. Other people can do their thing but don't tell me I have to be a part of it.

[HoreTore]

So, you would have no problems with me using my position and authority as a teacher to constantly belittle, ridicule christians and turn christian kids into social outcasts, then?

Nor would you have a problem with places where all the capital owners are of a different religion than christianity, to make sure that anyone who believes in christ to live in boundless poverty without any hope of ever gaining employment?

[Lemur]

The British education system. I was taught it was OK to be gay in health ed classes, so from around age 11+.

If I'm an employer I have to hire them.

If I'm B&B owner I have to let them stay in my house.

You can't escape, the leftist utopia has is all encompassing.

You say you are not one of the gutmensch... so surely you will not defend this?

Re: education, I have no problem with tolerance being taught in school, so long as it doesn't go overboard into relativism. Re: hiring, I don't think being gay means you have to hire me, rather that you can't hire someone less qualified because you can't stand me being queer. Re: bed and breakfast ... really? I thought the only reason to own and operate a B&B was to be poor in style. And do we really need the local poverty-oriented B&B operator to be making judgment calls about what race, ethnicity or sexual orientation he deems worthy of his money pit? Is that really the line between PC oppression and liberty? For reals?

As for whether or not I'm gutmensch, I've never said whether I was or wasn't, seeing as it's a catch-all category invented for condemnation. If you want to classify me with them, be my guest. What I was trying to get at, and I thought I was pretty freaking clear, was I would like to argue over things that have actually been said or done, rather than the imagined wrongs perpetrated by a numinous population of horrible do-gooders. Once someone starts arguing with the gutmensch, intelligent conversation is nearly impossible. I would argue that the argumentum ad gutmensch is nearly as thread-ending as a Godwin.

Let's try to be a bit more concrete. I would like to hear from one of the un-gutmensch about a concrete harm done by gays tying the knot. Gimme something specific. Not an imagined endgame where we're all living in enforced 24-hour sodomy or whatever. Give me a real-world damage done to someone --anyone -- by two men or two women getting married.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, because we crtainly don't see blood feuds in areas where the law isn't enforced. /sarcasm

We get them even where the "law" is enforced.

Any idiot can see a blood feud is a waste of time, so your best bet is to reach a compromise that everybody (except maybe ther murderer) deems appropriate. If you use the same compromise often enough is turns into something called "law", it is an entirely natural process.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, you would have no problems with me using my position and authority as a teacher to constantly belittle, ridicule christians and turn christian kids into social outcasts, then?

Nor would you have a problem with places where all the capital owners are of a different religion than christianity, to make sure that anyone who believes in christ to live in boundless poverty without any hope of ever gaining employment?

IMO we should live in homogenous nation states where your second point wouldn't be a problem. But these problems are created due to international socialists and the international capitalist elite. Damn the EU!

As for the first point, schools should just keep their noses out of it if they are state-funded. No need to talk about gayness or religion whatsoever.

Once someone starts arguing with the gutmensch, intelligent conversation is nearly impossible. I would argue that the argumentum ad gutmensch is nearly as thread-ending as a Godwin.

To call these people gutmensch is spot on. They just can't see they are gutmensch because to them everything is relative to where they are. You say you can't have a dialogue so maybe what you need first is some self-reflection.

Let's try to be a bit more concrete. I would like to hear from one of the un-gutmensch about a concrete harm done by gays tying the knot. Gimme something specific. Not an imagined endgame where we're all living in enforced 24-hour sodomy or whatever. Give me a real-world damage done to someone --anyone -- by two men or two women getting married.

A better question would be why should they get married.

Maybe it will make them feel accepted. But is it my job to accept them?

We have heterosexual marriage because the nuclear family was traditionally the building block of society. It still is to some degree. The same will never be true for gay couples, therefore I see no reason to aid their relationships with the associated tax cuts etc.