Ok, Tone, let me simplify this-
Two people want to get married. One group gets the right because one of is composed of a man and a woman. The other does not because they are of the same sex. One group gets its rights, the other does not.
This is fair?
And the notion that homosexuality is a choice is highly debated and often dismissed. From what I have seen of the lives of the homosexuals I know, I doubt they would have freely chosen to be members of a minority class.
If we are able to say that some homosexuals are gay because of genetics, that discriminating them because of their genetically predisposed desires is unfair.
ALternatively, we can do what you suggest. Gay people do marry people of the other gender for a variety of reasons, and often the marriage ends badly when one or the other realizes that "oh well, guess I like my own kind better."
So the only way you would allow gays to marry is if that was a fraud? That's a solution to this?
Come on Tone, what pisses you off is that you see a sacrament being jeopardized by a bunch of queers.
Or is it that you don't want others, or don't believe others can share the same kind of relationship you have with your wife just because the person has a different sexual preference?
But so many marriages don't work and we allow them. What about a marriage between two people who love and are committed to each other? Do you want to deny them their relationship because of the type of sexual organs they were born with?
ANd this notion that civil rights is about the things you can't choose is not right. People have civil rights in the way they want to raise their family, the religions they get to practice, the things they get to think, the secrets they keep, usually their thoughts and their speech and the people they form associations with. PEople have civil rights in their source of political ideas, in their willingness to protest or not protest, their right to vote or not vote.
Civil rights is based on that fundamental principle of democracy- the rights of individual to choose, and protecting those rights.
That's why the gay marriage amendment is being sponsored. Under the constitution there is a risk that the laws against gay marriage will be tossed out. The amendment would therefore restrict the rights of individuals one of the most fundamental rights under substantive due process- the right to choose who you wish to have a partnership with.
Ashmo- you wrote
"Morality is also a reason, but that morality is based on the instinct which tells us it's wrong (which is an instinct we have in order to protect the gene pool, simple as that)."
Sorry but if that's not suggestive of Gestalt, I don't know what it is. An instinctive reasoning that something is good or bad? Come on.
As for telling me to shut up- my suggestion would be to think before you speak. Whether my reasoning is short-sighted, no doubt. But I think teaching Constitutional Law kind of informs my thoughts on this.
Now as for your other ideas- you are pulling both your criticisms of me, your protrayal of me, and your ideas out of your ass. Sorry. I know you mean well, but much of what you are espousing is nonsense. Sorry but your post seems to be mostly either taking a position that is either defensive of your points or offensive against me, and that's clouding your judgement.
Sorry, I don't mean to hurt your feelings. But you're thinking is half wishful, half fuzzy and assumes much with little proof. If what Jebus said hurts your feelings, that's too bad. But don't make this into a personal attack.
You assume I am against you. But you assume wrong. One can understand the other's side, it's logic, and still see its flaws.
Is environmental protection found more in richer countries than in poorer ones? OF course. Why? Because environmental protections cost money and are a luxury that poor countries can't afford. Consider the environmental damage done in Russia, China, or how developed states dump their waste in undeveloped states.
As for your support of animal rights- while it is undoubtably true that animals are supposed to be treated better today, and they should be killed in a humane way, that principle didn't exist 40 or 50 years ago. Animals got those protections because people felt bad for the animals, in part because of changing social standards about cruelty to animals, not whether animals have inherent rights. And we haven't changed that much when it comes to our moral values. After all Nazis loved their dogs even as they sent jews the gas chamber.
But I would go so far as to say that rights are never "inherent" but must always be fought for. But that goes to my notion that the faith based idea of "natural rights" is bullshit. The rights of citizens were won in power contests, not granted from uphigh.
(Ok, you will say that's not very catholic of me. Yeah. But I don't wear my faith on my sleeve and I am willing to believe that the Church, and our understanding of God, is warped by our human failings).
But people's values change. We don't want animals to be hurt so we give them protections. They don't "have them" inherently. We created laws that prevent people from being cruel, and we could easily change that. But social standards do change, the trick of the law is to stay up with those changing standards.
That's the same with gay marriages. People are much more tolerant of gay rights now than they were 50 years ago. Perhaps we are evolving as a species. I hope so. But I don't see the amendment to ban gay marriages as a step in the right direction, but an appeal to religious traditionalism which should not be part of a liberal democracy.
Do I understand where Tone is coming from- yes. There needs to be a line drawn and it has to be clear. IT is always that way when it comes down to civil rights in this country. A murky line opens up more litigation and legal contest, where a clear line ideally defines the boundaries between the rights of the individual and the need of society to impose a social order of its' choosing.
Do I agree with Tone? No. But I understand what he is saying. Let's call my response to some critics that have been saying I am too harsh on the religious conservatives (like Lauren and Sander).
I am not unsympathetic for his desire for a line of standards to be drawn. But I am unsympathic to where he, and other religious conservatives, wish to draw that line. He is being more conservative, I am being more liberal.
We have a gay marriage thread elsewhere here. Go back and look at it before you try to tear me to pieces. This has been an thoughtful discussion thus far. Don't turn it into a chain of personal attacks and ruin it.
