Hello everybody

[Jon Miller]

Everyone has the right to join such clubs when they are children, everyone has the right to be an atheist or religious, everyone has the right to earn a college place if they have the ability.

Serious strawman.

And everyone has a right to marriage.

Marriage has not been "a social institution under which two men establish their decision to live as co-partners by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

You demonstrate a difficulty to understand these people who think in a different way from you (due to genetics/etc). This is pretty normal, the correct response is to overcome it and understand the other. It doesn't mean you have to agree, or think their way.

JM

[MikeH]

I still don't accept that being anti-gay marriage is genetic.

[Jon Miller]

For centuries 'marriage' has been a specific legal term in the UK. And homosexual people have not been getting married. I assume it must be a specific legal term in the US too, otherwise it would not be a political issue.

They have been.

That is what marriage is.

If you want to change marriage. Which is what you want to do, then a conservative would say 'give me a good reason'.

Plenty of good reasons exist. When you talk to a conservative, use them.

Don't say 'you must be stupid or a bigot to see this as not a change but just as an application of rights' because that is an argument that makes sense for you but not for them.

Understanding people who think differently is not beneath you.

JM

[kentonio]

You demonstrate a difficulty to understand these people who think in a different way from you (due to genetics/etc). This is pretty normal, the correct response is to overcome it and understand the other. It doesn't mean you have to agree, or think their way.

I understand these people perfectly, the difference between you and I appears to be that you mistake understanding with acceptance.

[Jon Miller]

I still don't accept that being anti-gay marriage is genetic.

Being anti-change is.

That means that they require a reasons that are based on it being a change.

Not based on the assumption that change is good/natural or that it isn't change at all.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I understand these people perfectly, the difference between you and I appears to be that you mistake understanding with acceptance.

You call them bigots or stupid.

That isn't understanding them.

When I am pro-gay marriage, how am I agreeing with the anti-gay marriage stand?

JM
(some are bigots and/or stupid)

[MikeH]

Plenty of good reasons exist. When you talk to a conservative, use them.

Don't say 'you must be stupid or a bigot to see this as not a change but just as an application of rights' because that is an argument that makes sense for you but not for them.

Understanding people who think differently is not beneath you.

JM

As I have said repeatedly, I would always do that first. But really the only important point is recognising equality of sexuality. Everything else falls from there and it is a if they won't accept that they won't accept any of the other arguments because things like recognition of rights towards children requires recognition that a gay couple is a valid social unit.

[MikeH]

I understand these people perfectly, the difference between you and I appears to be that you mistake understanding with acceptance.

Exactly.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how you can claim to understand them when you say 'bigot' or 'stupid'.

I don't see how you can make this claim, without being a hypocrite.

JM

[MikeH]

People "resisted the change" of moving from "being able to own slaves" to "not being able to own slaves". Possibly they were resistant to change. Luckily lots of people persisted in trying to change that belief.

People might have bigoted views, and not understand that they are bigoted, it's vital that we keep explaining why it is a problem and why their views are wrong. Even if they don't like hearing it.

[Jon Miller]

Calling a group of people bigots or stupid due to their genetics seems to me to be a terrible thing, especially such a large group. Way way worse than refusing a man to be able to marry antoher man.

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

We don't allow some people to drive. Like those without cars.

And so on.

Do we allow old people to join the cub scouts? Do we allow atheists to become priests (well, they do in Sweden, but in general...)? Do we allow people without degrees to do medical, law, or educational activities?

JM

I have no car -- haven't owned one in years -- and am allowed to drive.

Your examples, except for that bizarre one, fall into two categories. In the case of cub scouts and priests, you're takling about non-governmental organizations, which do indeed have a great deal of latitude in self-regulating. But that has no bearing here, except to idiots (not you) who raise the ridiculous "Churches will be forced to perform gay marriages!" canard.

In the case of law and medical degrees (and driving, as it happens), the state has a compelling interest in licensing practitioners of certain activities. But it cannot discriminate based on factors that have no bearing on the license; it cannot bar women from driving or Jews from practicing law. This is precisely analogous to the gay marriage argument.

[MikeH]

I don't see how you can claim to understand them when you say 'bigot' or 'stupid'.

I don't see how you can make this claim, without being a hypocrite.

JM

I tend to say bigot or stupid when people are actually bigoted or stupid.

You have agreed in this thread that, as a conservative, when presented with the arguments for gay marriage you support them.

What reason, other than prejudice against same sex couples, can you give why other people with conservative views would not be persuaded by the same arguments?

[MikeH]

Calling a group of people bigots or stupid due to their genetics seems to me to be a terrible thing, especially such a large group. Way way worse than refusing a man to be able to marry antoher man.

JM

Name calling is worse than discrimination?

I would rather someone called me stupid than legislated against me getting married.

And I need a huge amount more evidence to convince me that the vast majority of anti-gay marriage opponents are against it because of genetics not because of religious indoctrination.

[Jon Miller]

I tend to say bigot or stupid when people are actually bigoted or stupid.

You have agreed in this thread that, as a conservative, when presented with the arguments for gay marriage you support them.

What reason, other than prejudice against same sex couples, can you give why other people with conservative views would not be persuaded by the same arguments?

Because most of what they hear is 'bigot bigot bigot' or 'stupid' or "'change'". Which are mostly attacks, and the main argument isn't one that geared to persuade them.

JM