is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

If you're refering to Sarcasmo's posts, I didn't take what he wrote as saying "Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children". Especially when he clearly stated that he himself is a religious married man, and I doubt he categorizes himself as the above. I just understood it as pointing out the glaring faults in viewing same sex marriage as a threat to the institution of marriage when there are already plenty of straight people out there as we speak who are trashing marriage, and that we ought to be worrying about instead. Basically, why is a same sex couple considered a threat when there ARE so many straight folks out there (religious or not) adding to the incredibly high divorce rates of today, being abusive to their spouses or children, etc. If opponents really want to "defend marriage", then perhaps that's where they should focus their attention.

I don't really see this point as being too relevant. If I want to propose something that makes it easier to get funding for college, you couldn't argue against it by saying "so what, the graduation rate is only 70%, the whole system's going to hell". I don't think the people who don't support gay marriage do support spousal abuse. Also I doubt it's as easy to solve the high divorce rate as it would be this issue.

Originally Posted by Sean

Okay, I'm going to ask you to justify this stunning leap in logic before I reply to it - especially since it's a comment that's already been addressed in my past few posts.

Okay, you said that the individual issues of each possibility would have to be addressed. Let's say you want to be a polygamist. What are the health, consent, or common species arguments against that? Or if you wanted to marry your sister? (you know, provided you wouldn't be having kids). As for the other argument, it depends on what you're looking for as 'in common'. You say a gay couple has more in common with a straight couple than a man/beast one? That's true, but I could argue that a brother/sister relationship has more in common with a straight couple than the gay one does.

Originally Posted by Sean

You seem to have a different definition of civil rights than I do. Part of the generally accepted definition includes "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality" - primarily for blacks when first instituted, but it applies to many groups (excluding goat fuckers of course, because among other things, that's an issue of beastiality and being in a relationship with a party that's unable to express it's thoughts and desires).
And the simple fact is that the rights regarding marriage do exist, which is why those who penned, backed, and voted for prop 8 in California felt it necessary to actually create a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibited same sex couples from being able to marry. So they were very literally and actively stripped of their constitutionally guaranteed right to "social equality".
Since we're at the point where you're actually asking me to defend my position against goat fuckers - which I did in my parenthetical above incidentally - I'd like to ask you a question, and I'd really appreciate a serious answer. Keeping in mind what we've already discussed, what are the good, logically sound, non-discriminatory arguments against same sex marriage in your opinion, and why?

I do have a different definition than you. Because I don't really consider marriage a civil right any more than getting a hunting license is. Again, I'm not really seeing it as an equality issue; I can't marry another guy either. Do you think that it's a civil rights violation that not everyone can run for President? I'm not making point of beastiality to equate the two issues. I'm saying that in both cases, they are essentially arguing to change the rules of marriage as they exist now. I'm not going to argue against gay marriage because I don't really believe the reasons that there are against it, but I would say one of the best arguments against it would be to say it's not necessary. The law allows me to smoke tobacco, but not marijuana; do I feel like I have the right to smoke marijuana if that's my preference? The point is I don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now. They are trying to legislate the rights of "couples", which I think itself would need to be defined before going further. I think the idea of a "couple" is too abstract right now and can lead to some of the issues I related above.