Marriage is a civil right in the US

Welcome to the pit Gearkat...Mothers marrying sons? Nieces marrying Uncles? Brothers wedding sisters? How does this fit in with your understanding of the constitution?

Care to elaborate Damouse. A word which is defined by the word it is trying to define kind of makes my head hurt. I'm not all that familiar with the American constitution. Does it say anything specific about mothers marrying sons and other such things. If not should that be permissible too?

Could you define freedom with words that don't use the word freedom. We can all say this and that is not to be interpreted but it tends to short ciruit discussion. I could say "Gays cannot be married and that is not to be interpreted". But I wouldn't say that Yeah, but if the the law says that gays cannot marry and that law can be changed then why not mothers and sons marrying after changing those laws too?And if there is no law against gays marrying then whats all the fuss about. Why don't they just go ahead an get married?

You said earlier that Freedom was Freedom and "no buts". Patently there are buts. A person can be denied the privilege of liberty by the 'but' of a law broken. Or did you mean no buts in another sense? Okay. So while Faith is attempting to go backwards you want it to go forwards. Mothers who want to marry their sons could follow the same route you might pose gays follow (civil rights perhaps?). May I presume brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews marrying are okay too. Fair enough. Now on a little further. Is there any reason why the laws forbidding bigamy should not be changed and if not should there be any limit to the amount of wives or husbands (of whatever sex) a person may have?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I have lived for reasonable period of time in three european countries: Holland, England and Ireland. All before I was a Christian (except Ireland where I live now). All these countries are largely secular and have been for some years. In all of these countries and in varying degrees, homosexuality was viewed as something abnormal. Perhaps not amongst the limited culture amongst which homosexual life takes place, but in the culture at large this was the case. The view was expressed in various ways ranging from bigotry to quiet disgust to restriction of gay expression to societal stigma. I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any of these things but only say that that is the view that I saw.Holland being tolerant in just about everything was the most tolerant of all but I never got the impression that homosexuality was considered anything but abnormal and deviant.Sure there will be religious folk who condemn it from the pulpit as there are folk like you who see no problem at all. In the middle however, where the majority reside, the view was as I have expressed above.You assertion that the anti-gay marriage stance is purely the result of religious prejudice is a flawed one. The secular world says otherwise. They may not prevent gays getting married for they might well be convinced by the 'civil rights' type arguement you put up. But abnormal and abherant they can still hold it to be.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

It doesn't have to be prejudice or bigotry at all that is being expressed. If a population thinks a particular behaviour is repellent then that is what they think. And that they think so makes it so - barring some other higher authority you can call into the dock.Remember whatever rule or principle you refer to in justifying a promotion of gay marriage it will be based on an interpretation of what some people felt was the way to go back whenever the rule or principle was established. Their view isn't some absolute truth and it is only relevant in so far a population are willing to be guided by that view. Constitutional amendements show that the population (via those they vote to speak on their behalf) from time to time feel the need to further define that which is not fully covered in the original. And it can be expressed in any way the population likes. Something is bigotry only if the population says so and not if they don't. Until such time as they say so then bigotry-in-my-own-image-and-likeness is the best one can claim. Unless, like I say, you can refer to some other court which stands higher than the populations view at this moment.In the meantime, you are free to lobby for a change in the direction you personally (or a group of personalities) feel is the right one. And others in whatever direction they like. When the decision falls and the views is established, then you may toss words like bigotry and prejudice around - for the population has decided that that is what that view is. But until then is at best junk-bigotry or perhaps proto-prejudice.Edited by iano, : typo

The trouble with isolating it so is that is seeks to place the issue in a bell jar from which everything that may inform the decision is sucked out. And that just doesn't deal with society as we find it. Society is a hugely complex affair and issues arising in it should be expected to be complex. For instance, I would hold that one cannot put an issue in a bell jar and then spanner on it without reference to anything else. You might hold that we can. And so we go on.The dictionary definition is only one of a series of definitions all of which are informed by this worldview and that. In the end it can only be society at large which decides the issue (and God of course in which ever way he allows things to develop - he might well allow gay marriage to occur even though it is against his law). It might not be deemed to be an ideal way but it is the only way we have got.In the meantime I would uphold everyones right to try to make the society reflect the way they would like to have it and respect that right. The use of slander on both sides is unfortunate but probably to be expected - for it is worldviews that are being expressed here. And we know the can of worms that will be opened once these pitch tents.

There are seething cauldrons of discord and conflict and there are seething cauldrons of discord and conflict. Whilst a person might despair at the seething cauldron that society has made for itself, they are trying to resist those who want to pull society over the brim and into the fire. As is their right.Ever consider that your views might be held as nutball by others?

No more so than asserting gay marriage as moral (or perhaps civil rights) progress is begging the question. The question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing. I say it leads down a slope to moral depravity. You think it leads upwards towards something.It is a subjective thing and we are both entitled to our view on what we consider a) moral depravity to be and b) whether gay marriage leads to that. You might agree with some of your fellow proponants of gay marriage that there is no more reason to legislate against this than there is to legislate against mothers marrying sons or people having numerous wives and husbands. If you do not see that as a 'bad' thing then I cannot help that - my subjective standard as to 'moral fibre of society' differs from yours Its not a question of there never having existed opportunties for moral destruction. At times these opportunities are taken and times not. At times societies utterly destroy themselves (think Roman or 3rd Reich Germany) in their depravity. And they recover and start the cycle all over again.I don't see that societies endless cycle of entering into and emerging from destructive tendencies having any bearing on this issue. That we have done in the past and will do again in the future means we should stand back whilst some, and it is only some, attempt to drag things down again? Hardly.