Gay Rights - Why is this an issue?

[appolose]

akuma587 said:

Thanks for defending me without me having to type any vagabond!

Essentially, we are saying you can't win the argument on a linguistical loophole, appolose. If you think that is a sound basis for saying that imposing one objective morality (which does not allow outsiders to influence that morality) is better than another objective morality (which allows everyone to influence what that morality is), then I am a little worried about you.  Imposing something on people has everything to do with whether or not they can have a voice in what is being imposed on them is.  That is what a system of government is, government by the people for the people.

Frankly, you aren't convincing anyone but yourself with your argument anymore. That's not an effective argument. Sure you can say that it is logically correct, but arguing to support a moral ethos is an inherently illogical practice to begin with, because morality is not logical. Trying to win an argument that has from the outset stepped outside the bounds of logic per se by imposing logical rules is a self-defeating practice, and will just as equally defeat your argument. You can't say, "Both are arguments are defeated, so I win."

I am suggesting a social system which allows everyone to influence the dominant objective morality and to change it as they see fit. What you are advocating is social system in which a large percentage of the population cannot influence that objective morality because they are outsiders. This has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with this country's social ethos. The decision is based on an ideology which this country has adhered to since it was founded, democracy.

I thought I had escaped!  :)

So you can advocate not imposing morailty and impose morality at the same time?  "Linguistic loophole" or not, that a pretty tough thing to do.  You're going to have to show how the morality that you impose is somehow the exception to the rule, which you haven't yet, thereby leaving me to wonder why you're being selective about this; that is, why murder and not homosexuality.

There is nothing illogical about a moral ethos.  If you decide that stealing is wrong, then this idea of stealing is either something you've assumed (which hardly is contradictory), or it's something you've derived from another principle you hold.  It's perfectly logical.

I've not argued against democracy at all, and, to be honest, I'm not all together sure why you're bringing it up.  I was disussing soley whether or not the position "You can't impose morality" is tenable.  I have no problem with  a majority decision; where's the contradiction in that?  However, you seem to have the problem; you oppose the anti-homosexual marriage advocates for being bigoted when the morality in a democracy is simply decided by the majority, which, if it did vote to ban gay marriage, then you should have no problem with that (unless you feel I'm exploiting another linguistic loophole).