cableguy…although I think you have a point in “I do believe that if someone feels that something truly goes against their religious beliefs, and thus the person opposes that issue, then I would say that is a valid reason” however having a valid reason to obstain from something for religious reasons is totally different from having a valid reason to force others to adhere to your religious beliefs. And this is what those who are opposed to SSM are trying to do - force everyone to accept a religious concept of what marriage is. There is no valid, logical, nonreligious reason for anyone to oppose SSM.
I too would not dismiss their beliefs as ‘stupid’ just as I wouldn’t tell a child that his belief in Santa was stupid. It’s just plain cruel. 
[[quote]quote=“flike”]
Actually, I don’t think that there are any valid arguments against same-sex marriages independent of religious beliefs.
Your logic here escapes me completely. Why is it impossible for someone to disagree with another person’s mistaken beliefs while at the same time
being willing to admit that the other person has got a valid point? Phelps hates homosexuals (he’s a clown) and his way of showing his feelings is awful but if he opposes SSMs due to his religious beliefs then I will accept that he has a valid point. Of course, the way he goes about showing his opposition is terrible, but he’s a clown. Still, I disagree with his seemingly valid point and I don’t see how this means I agree with him at all.
Yes, I think many religions,not only Christianity, can and do offer valid arguments against SSMs. This issue is not only between Christians and non-Christians. Certainly, Muslems would oppose SSMs.
Of course, but that is because Bush and others like him don’t see SSMs as a civil rights issue. They see it as a choice, which it is, and thus they don’t feel that the people who choose to get married to someone of the same gender deserve the same protection and rights as others. I disagree strongly with Bush’s opinion.
Vannyel,
I see your point and it is a good one. I didn’t think about what you said before I submitted my original post. Yes, indeed, those opposing SSMs are truly trying to force their opinions on others which is the problem with their opposition to same-sex marriages.
It is nice to read about something good happening in America. I hope that the international media lets it play long enough to convince the rest of the world that there are still progressives in the US.
[quote=“cableguy”]Your logic here escapes me completely. Why is it impossible for someone to disagree with another person’s mistaken beliefs while at the same time
being willing to admit that the other person has got a valid point? Phelps hates homosexuals (he’s a clown) and his way of showing his feelings is awful but if he opposes SSMs due to his religious beliefs then I will accept that he has a valid point. Of course, the way he goes about showing his opposition is terrible, but he’s a clown. Still, I disagree with his seemingly valid point and I don’t see how this means I agree with him at all.[/quote]
Maybe our disagreement is more semantic than necessary. I think Phelps has a valid opinion, but that’s not saying much since every American’s opinion is protected - or validated - in its expression alone.
When I mention a valid argument, I mean one in which the conclusion must be true if, and only if, its premisses are true.
Since the first amendment to the US constitution guarantees that the state will establish no religion, to me that means that premisses based in Christianity - or any other religion - are not necessarily true. If they’re not necessarily true, then any conclusion based on them is not necessarily true.
If I’m correct, then your attempt to accomodate Bush and his ilk are wrong because their argument about SSMs can’t be valid.
In my opinion, this emphasis on validity is necessary. After all, you seem to be arguing that since the majority of Americans are Christian, then their collective “gut” tells them homosexuality is wrong. In addition, those who describe themselves as homosexual should be denied certain civil rights available to Americans who do not. In other words, the collective “gut feeling” of Christians outweighs that of homosexuals. Why should that be true?
If these “Christian” premisses were true, why would the first amendment be necessary? Its protection would be unnecessary in every American’s “gut,” and thus moot, no?
Why?
If it’s a choice, then why do you disagree strongly with Bush?
After all, under your definition, any “gay” American can merely choose to change their sexual orientation and meet the letter of the law (if not its spirit).
What’s the problem with that? Why would there be the slightest furor over a constitutional amendment if this were merely a matter of choice?
flike,
You keep attributing things to me that I either didn’t say or even imply, and then you tear apart “my”(your own) argument to show I am wrong. Why are you doing this? For instance, I wrote
I wrote …[quote]bush and others like him don’t see SSMs as a civil rights issue. They see it as a choice, which it is, and thus they don’t feel that the people who choose to get married to someone of the same gender deserve the same protection and rights as others. I disagree strongly with Bush’s opinion.[/quote]
You replied
[quote]Why?
If it’s a choice, then why do you disagree strongly with Bush?
After all, under your definition, any “gay” American can merely choose to change their sexual orientation and meet the letter of the law (if not its spirit).[/quote]
I didn’t say the person’s sexual orientation was a choice. I said that the decision of same-sex people to get married was a choice. There is a difference. I don’t think homosexuals have any choice in their sexual orientation but certainly the decision to marry or not is a choice for both straight and gay couples.
You wrote
I replied
You replied
What does your answer have to do with your question to me? I answered your question based on what you asked and then you brought in something entirely unrelated to your own question: the First Amendment. I was answering what you asked and you veered off topic. If you want to debate about what is written in The U.S. Constitution, I will be happy to oblige you but please try to stay on one issue at a time, especially when you have raised an issue or asked a question.
You wrote
Where in the world did you get this from what I had written? I don’t believe at all that the “majority of Americans are Christian.” As a matter of fact, I think that Christians make up a minority in the USA. I could be wrong but since I am not a Christian, nor are most people I know, then this is my feeling only.
You wrote
Since, as I have stated in previous posts, I think homosexuals should have the right to get married, why would I want to deny them their rights to be able to do so? What are you talking about?
I wrote that Bush doesn’t see SSMs as a civil rights issue but that is his opinion. Please post where I say that this is my opinion also. You won’t be able to do that since I never said what you are claiming I stated.
Please debate me on the things I have actually said and not on the things you claim that I said.
[quote=“cableguy”]flike,
You keep attributing things to me that I either didn’t say or even imply, and then you tear apart “my”(your own) argument to show I am wrong. Why are you doing this? …[/quote]
Because we’re at the limits of my reading comprehension and your writing ability, apparently.
I do understand your point, in general, about the need to validate opinions solely on the fact that they exist. In other words, (I think) you mean that, no matter the source of ones opinion, it’s worthy of respect if for no other reason than that it’s owned by a human. If I’m correct in my interpretation of your stance, then I have to agree, but I really don’t think that it’s saying much. As a means of expressing politeness, however, I can appreciate its power and of course I agree.
I think that the act of expressly denying Americans who choose to enter same-sex unions certain civil rights - among other Bush administration actions - is so offensive, so patently unjust, that it’s important to understand its support, the arguments in favor of same. That’s it, basically.
media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/ … 87,00.html
hooray Homer