You are correct. By my views would also have to benefit everyone, I would think. They don't... and the last thing I want people calling me is a bigot becasue I am not bigoted toward SS couples. It's just my personal view.
Thanks. I would love to act to end it, but not at the expense of what I think to be right. To me, compromising my beliefs isn't something I am willing to do, personally. I think lot of political issue center around doing what you THINK is best for the people even if you KNOW you shouldn't, at times. If you're unwilling, the best thing is to stay out of lawmaking. I am not willing.
Again, it's not that I don't want to end the discrimination, but it puts a guy like me at a crossroad -- violate your conscience at the expense of liberating a few people, or hold your conscience at the expense of them not being liberated. Heavy choice for someone like myself. EDIT: Now, not to be confused with standing idly by, if gays were being mudered for being gay, then that's a whole different ball game. I would step in to end it because peple are violating the human right to life. It's not in violation of what I deem to be right to step in a save a person from being killed.
What I can see happening an open assualt on the Constiution and federal law. If gays are allowed to marry, then what's to stop ploygmaists from stepping forward and asking their rights be recongized, or people who want to enter marriage contracts with kids. That seems out of line, and rightfully so. But I say that to say this: People don't really care about the sacntity of things anymore -- "times have changed, people have changed", they say. "I want this... we want this, you"re violating this..." We don't look down the line often and all we really want is what's good at the time.
It's not like I hold a view that gays are broke or need to be locked up somewhere and I am unwilling to budge. It's a clear moral issue that holds me intact.
That's a tuffy. I would ask if they could meet somewhere in between? Can each side give a little and be ok with a little discomfort?
Good post, thanks. I have much the same quandary on a variety of subjects, in that I love traditional America but don't want others' liberty restricted to preserve it for me. But I think in the end, sanctity is an extremely personal thing; forced sanctity isn't really sanctity, and refusing to recognize gay marriage in no way changes the gay person's relationship with G-d or lack thereof. If anything, our Christian opposition to gay marriage drives gays away from G-d. No one wants to belong to a group that believes one's entire orientation is a sin. Imagine if we took the same tact with people who eat pork or catfish!
Regarding the slippery slope argument, I think pederasts are clearly different animals because children are inherently unable to give informed consent and extending marriage beyond consenting adults is no longer a consensual contract, leaving virtually nothing in common with traditional marriage. Polygamists are sort of in-between and I have no problems in principle with them, but I think they can reasonably be separated from gay marriage on two points. First, a polygamous marriage is inherently more difficult for society (or at least, for government) in legal matters such as child custody and inheritance. If a woman wants to divorce her husband and her wife, do the children go with their natural mothers, or stay with the two parents who wish to keep the family unit in tact? Second, there is a history of coercion associated with polygamy which is simply not associated with gay marriage, with cults or splinter religions of Mormon/Christian, Islamic and even Jewish heritage essentially growing their own child brides. Neither of these are necessarily grounds for banning polygamous marriage, but are I think sufficient to separate them from gay marriage. Both of these are perhaps more likely if gay marriage is accepted, but neither automatically follows. Indeed, one could make the argument that societies which sanctify gay marriage are less likely to accept child marriages, being more classically liberal and classical liberalism being strongly associated with establishing new child protections.
Also, I dislike the slippery slope argument because virtually every change is a slippery slope, making another change more likely. One could make a cogent argument that allowing interfaith marriages directly led to allowing interracial marriages which directly leads to accepting gay marriage. One could also make a cogent argument that this procession is due to the lack of societal damage at each step - that the progression is due not to erosion of traditional values so much as valuing individual liberty and recognizing that change is not necessarily bad. There's nothing wrong with that progression - indeed, it's necessary to cope with a changing world - as long as each new step is evaluated on its own merits. It may well be that, with some necessary protections established, polygamous marriage is the next to be accepted. But that isn't in my opinion a good reason to discriminate against gays any more than stopping the Lord's Resistance Army from gaining a foothold here would be a good reason for banning Christian evangelical churches. Let each decision be made on its own merits, and let us accord as much personal liberty, and as much equality, as we can accommodate.
EDIT: Your answer to my question is sound; compromise is generally a good thing. Personally I'd answer a bit differently and say the minority should be accommodated as long as doing so does not directly and materially harm other individuals. It's just difficult to make someone mostly equal.
Facebook
Twitter