Posted: May 18, 2012 2:56 am
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:purplerat wrote:So if it were a religion you had no particular issue with you would have no problem with it? Or what if it were one race being officially recognized and given special rights and privileges (lets say "Black") but no such recognition, rights or privileges for non-blacks? If you truly are ok with the government arbitrarily giving special rights and privileges to one group over others then you really have no integrity on the matter of equal rights or civil liberties so why bother discussing such matters at all?
I have already stated that I have no problem in theory with the one religion I "have no particular issue with", namely Christianity, being supported by the state.
So you admit that while you would object to somebody else imposing their religion on you, you would have no problem imposing your religion on others. In that case to you accept my assessment that such a position means "you really have no integrity on the matter of equal rights or civil liberties"? If the answer is yes then why even bother discussing such topics if all you care about is making everybody else do what makes you personally the happiest?
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
Anyhow, the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual conduct may be "arbitrary" from a purely abstract scientific standpoint, (aside from the obvious factor of reproduction) but as I mentioned before, science has naught to do with morals.
Yet you have presented no non-arbitrary moral justification for objecting to gay marriage.
Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:
And it's obviously far easier to chose your religion or your romantic partner than it is to chose your race, so you really can't compare them.
Gender is no more a choice than is race. Telling women they can't marry a woman is the same as telling blacks they can't marry a white.