RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 17, 2018 at 10:08 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2018 at 10:18 pm by Amarok.)
(July 17, 2018 at 10:04 pm)polymath257 Wrote:Agreed this long screed to hide the inherent bigotry of their position is the smoke screen here .(July 17, 2018 at 9:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity. I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others). It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters. We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage. And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality. A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster. It simply doesn't qualify. And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent. We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close). When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.
- I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with a toaster. Not even close. Bigotry redacted!
This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be. It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me). But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what. That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person). Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something. I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify. it's not oppressive. For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others). It is sacred, a gift from God. It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one. It was set out that way from the beginning.
We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies. But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear. It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human. Not for myself anyway. I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive. But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks). So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins). From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to. The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.
Yes, marriage is a *legal* contract that provides certain *legal* benefits. As long as all couples who want this get *equal* labels, treatment, and benefits, there isn't an issue.
The *only* reason to deny gay couples these benefits and call it other than what every other couple has is a silly, outmoded definition. And the attempt to keep that definition has no rational basis. it *isn't* like trying to marry a toaster or a goat. it is marrying another human being who wants to join their lives with yours.
(July 17, 2018 at 10:04 pm)polymath257 Wrote:He will likely try and twist that statement into an incest angle . But don't worry that comparison fails too .(July 17, 2018 at 9:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity. I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others). It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters. We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage. And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality. A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster. It simply doesn't qualify. And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent. We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close). When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.
- I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with a toaster. Not even close. Bigotry redacted!
This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be. It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me). But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what. That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person). Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something. I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify. it's not oppressive. For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others). It is sacred, a gift from God. It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one. It was set out that way from the beginning.
We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies. But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear. It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human. Not for myself anyway. I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive. But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks). So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins). From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to. The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.
Yes, marriage is a *legal* contract that provides certain *legal* benefits. As long as all couples who want this get *equal* labels, treatment, and benefits, there isn't an issue.
The *only* reason to deny gay couples these benefits and call it other than what every other couple has is a silly, outmoded definition. And the attempt to keep that definition has no rational basis. it *isn't* like trying to marry a toaster or a goat. it is marrying another human being who wants to join their lives with yours.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb