Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[St Leo]

Show me a liberal who would object to consent being used as the parameter.

[Zylka]

on your precious legality

What does that have to do with anything, at all?

[mindseye]

Re: on your precious legality

Originally posted by Zylka

What does that have to do with anything, at all?

Well, for one, it ended the practice of men marrying pre-pubescent girls. In 1889 California lead the nation in raising the age of consent, which at that time in CA was ten.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why shouldn't men be able to marry ten-year olds? Seems like an arbitrary decision to me...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm still trying to understand what people have against gay marriage besides just religious beliefs and bigotry.

If BK is against it for purely religious beliefs, that's fine by me. His religion doesn't have to perform or recognize them... their right.

But the problem with religious morality is that it is universalist in scope. If you believe it, then you are morally bound to oppose homosexuality and to attempt to prevent it. There really isn't any possibility of a rational compromise if you are a committed Christian.

For a Christian like Ben, belief in Christianity is akin to other people's belief in political liberalism - it's a universalist moral prescription.

One might as well ask why we should believe in Millsian liberalism as the basis for organizing society. The only response I have seen from people is question begging, they believe that it is better because it doesn't interfere in others' private lives. But that just assumes the theory to prove it.

But all the "logical" arguments people bring up against aren't really logical at all... and are just weak rationales for supporting their bigotry or religious beliefs.

Some of them are. Religious people have a teleological view of the world. They believe that God created sex for the purpose of procreation. Anything other than this is perversion.

Of course we can believe they are wrong but agree to tolerate their beliefs if they don't harm others. The problem is that such beliefs are by nature intolerant of dissenters. So are ours (it's just that different people count as "dissenters").
.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why shouldn't men be able to marry ten-year olds? Seems like an arbitrary decision to me...

Another member of the Jerry Lee Lewis fan club.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why shouldn't men be able to marry ten-year olds? Seems like an arbitrary decision to me...

Why shouldn't women be able to marry ten-year olds?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why shouldn't women be able to marry ten-year olds?

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. Any attempt to stop such a practice would just be a blatant attempt to force a subjective moral standard onto the populace. This must not stand; morality should not be legislated.

[DRoseDARs]

Children are neither biologically mature nor emotionally mature enough to be having sex, much less sex with adults. While stopping teenagers from having sex with each other is an exercise in futility, stopping adults from manipulating children and cooercing them into having sex is a standard of morality we can enforce.

[Drake Tungsten]

Children are neither biologically mature nor emotionally mature enough to be having sex, much less sex with adults.

That's just your opinion. I fail to see how you can objectively prove that children aren't "emotionally mature" enough to be having sex with adults.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
But the problem with religious morality is that it is universalist in scope. If you believe it, then you are morally bound to oppose homosexuality and to attempt to prevent it. There really isn't any possibility of a rational compromise if you are a committed Christian.

Are you saying that clergy and congregations from Christian churches in Canada who want to perform marriage ceremonies for gays are not committed Christians? Not Catholic, or Orthodox maybe, but how do you get not Christian?

Would there even be an issue about this if there were not churches willing and wanting to perform this sacrament for gay couples? I think not since no one, no where has proposed that clergy be forced to perform marriages for gay couples in churches which disavow it.

This issue is a lot bigger than just rights for gay people. This issue is also about whether churches are free to decide their own course based on the consciences of thier own congregants.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Children are neither biologically mature nor emotionally mature enough to be having sex, much less sex with adults.

That's just your opinion. I fail to see how you can objectively prove that children aren't "emotionally mature" enough to be having sex with adults.

According to your troll, we should be able to kill people on whim too, right? After all, there is no objective 'right' or 'wrong' is there?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
According to your troll, we should be able to kill people on whim too, right? After all, there is no objective 'right' or 'wrong' is there?

That's his point. He's trying to draw a parallel into saying how everything can be judged simply as people forcing morals onto other people.

It's stupid, and I'm sure he knows that but is trolling it for fun.

[Drake Tungsten]

According to your troll, we should be able to kill people on whim too, right? After all, there is no objective 'right' or 'wrong' is there?

Yes, according to my troll. If there is no objective morality, then all things are permissable.

[notyoueither]

Tell that to the judge.