When you lump homosexuality together with adultery, intolerance is absolutely a vice.

 

So, it's OK to be intolerant of homosexuality as long as you don't lump it together with adultery?

What if you merely lump it together with fornication?

 

I've been trying, but apparently i'm not articulate enough to put this in a way that makes my point just the way I want it made. But here goes.

Allowing a gay couple to marry has no direct impact on straight couples' right to marry. So why not let it happen?

Why is it okay to be intolerant of homosexuals? This stumped me, because I thought if there was one thing we could agree on, it was... intolerance is bad, mmmmkay?

 

Will, I see your point. The idea you seem to be pressing is "Why not let them live as we live (in marriage) and call it the same thing?" That's a very valid question.
Yet I still hold my controversial viewpoint, and I hope it is not offensive that I do.

I think religion implies a view or perspective on the purpose of life and the reasoning behind it. This perspective often carries with it some caveats on how the person will see moral issues such as adultery, homosexuality, lust, pornography, and so on.

Abortion is another that is politically a hot topic. If you see the world as a Christian, the whole concept of "abortion is murder" takes on a different meaning. I think gay marriage is the same in that it has a slightly different meaning to active christians than to those without a faith.

To give a better illustration of the reasoning, here's a hypothetical. If a Catholic sees a late-term abortion of an unbaptized child as something that will damn a child to hell, eternally, (I'm not sure if they do) it makes sense that the Catholic would vehemently oppose late-term abortions in all cases, including those beyond his own family. I think he/she has the right to vote on that, and if the general public shares and supports his views, it's a fair thing to impose on society. If not, then so be it. The Catholic will have to live with the fact that society does not share his ideals.

I think that fundamental difference in views is the core reason behind why Mormons do not agree with gay marriage being considered equal to traditional marriage. We all think fairly alike, but this is one of the areas where a difference arises. But it's not hatred or ill-will towards any person, so I hope it's not taken that way.

And your question got me thinking a lot more on the issue though, so regardless of what you think of that perspective, thanks for making me learn more about my own views!

 

[QUOTE=Will,Nov 23 2008, 12:26 PM]Allowing a gay couple to marry has no direct impact on straight couples' right to marry.

 

Their marriage must be pretty weak if other people getting married is going to affect the meaning of their marriage! Was their marriage weakened by Britany Spears 56 hour marriage or her train wreck of a second marriage? Was it dimninished by the multiple marriages of Gabor and Taylor?

That would be like saying because someone drives a 69 Beetle, our enjoyment of our S2K's is somehow diminished.

As far as the Mormon or Baptist or Catholic view of homosexual marriage, fine, let these institutions ban it for their members, excommunicate anyone who professes to be a member and marries a person of the same sex. No problem. Marriage is a civil affair. The minister closes the deal with the words "By the power vested in my by the state of ..." and without a license from the civil authorities, he can't do that.

 

[QUOTE=magician,Nov 23 2008, 03:53 PM] While it's probably true that it has no direct impact on straight couples' right to marry, it arguably has a direct impact on the meaning of marriage to (many) straight couples.

 

And if marriage were such a sacred religious affair, why do so many people take it so lightly and why is divorce just as common? When I see more people actually working at and taking marriage seriously instead of a trend, ill be more inclined to see the religious stand point.

 

Jerk, I almost spewed my Pepsi as I read this


What is the problem, life ain't fair deal with it. Twice California has wasted time and money to vote this in and now once again the courts may try to tell us our votes don't count. They are acting like spoiled children who don't get their way. They didn't defend their position during the voting process and now they are whining. I was taking my kids to get ice cream down the road in Laguna Beach from my house in Newport Beach and a bunch of them of them were protesting after the fact. They tried to block my way (I was driving my Tundra Crew Max, just to taunt the protesters I made a big L with my hand on my forehead and they got all agitated so I used the train horn I had just installed and scattered them ) never a good idea to stand in front of 6000 plus pounds of Japanese and Texas plastic and a bit of steel, especially when I don't give a squirt of plss about their cause.


So if the San Francisco judges negate our votes again do they think the gays will be accepted with open arms and all is forgiven attitude? You can't force someone to accept you, racism and discrimination exists some are more open about it then others. Deal with it.

 

Ace, mind if I ask a followup question? This isn't meant as an attack, I just don't understand the viewpoint you posted.

If the objection to homosexual marriage is based on the inability to conceive children, do you think those people objecting would agree with the following statements?

a) A man and a woman should not be allowed to marry if the woman has had a hysterectomy, because their inability to conceive children degrades the sanctity of the traditional family.

b) A man and a woman should not be allowed to marry if the man has had a vasectomy, because their inability to conceive children degrades the sanctity of the traditional family.

c) A man and a woman should not be allowed to marry if they want never to have children, because their unwillingness to conceive children degrades the sanctity of the traditional family.