Gay marriage in... Utah? Update: on hold for now

[ninetailschris]

Seece said:

ninetailschris said:

curl-6 said:

ninetailschris said:

 Do you honestly feel people scared of homosexuals? The idea is to protect marriage not because we want gays dead or hate gays.

Marriage doesn't need protection. Homosexuality does not threaten it.

I would beg to differ. What you are doing is re-defining marriage and rights to whatever someone personally feels. Why not allow multiple wives and husbands? Why not allow marriage between animals and humans? Why not with children under the age of 13? Why not with anything. If you re-define basic rights as anyone could do whatever they like because it's right than you have to question why can't just create my own rights. Why are your rights more true than mine?  Why is anything not a right. Your left with everything relative and nothing meanings anything because it's meaningless like Nietzsche would say. 

Is human rights a man made idea in which is completely subjective and if so why not just say your opinion is as neutral as the opposite opinion? Example, did the nazi do anything wrong because they believe humans rights were for there specific people oppose to you who felt the opposite? Is it just a difference in moral opinions on human rights?

Your whole argument is so flawed it's not even funny.

Man - Woman

Man - Man

Woman - Woman.

2 adults that love each other and are in a consensual relationship.

How you jump from

Man - Woman - Woman

Man - Animal

Ect, is disgusting and weak. You know it's not at all comparable but you need to find a way to justify "I don't like it" plain and simple.

Marriage is not threatened by gay people, I would say the millions of straight couples that divorce each year are more a threat of devaluing it, and even then it's not a big deal.

I suggest you read what I am saying, instead of thinking your reading someone else's argument.

My argument is a re-defining rights based on nothing but the idea that morals are subjective.

I used a large range of examples besides animals in other post and in this post.

Example:polygamy, murder, or any human right issue. You literally ignored that my first general board point which was on polygamy and nothing on beastility. There is literally one sentence on beasitly.This is example of someone reading one part of a writing and reading everything as a whole from one sentence. Did you not read anything beyond that point or even before? 

What about my main points on the problems of subjective morals and how you can't get ANY moral truths? Every other sentence was based around this and that one point was just a supporting sentence.

 "2 adults that love each other and are in a consensual relationship."

If you read my most recent posting and even the one your responding to you will see why are problems with your defense. Why two? Why consensual? Based on who definition? Why are they objectively right? 

If you read on my post instead of reading on part you will see what was the actual theme of the discussion. My argument isn't that gay marriage is the problem, my problem is justify your personal beliefs as moral truths based on nothing but subjectivity.  Seems many on here have some belief of higher moral ground on the issue but when it you examine it is no more true the opposition. Basically, I'm saying the effect of morals being meaningless is because of secularism(relativism), not because of gay-marriage. Gay-marriage would be only the effect and effects aren't causes.

 Seem you didn't even understand what I was arguing because you jump to conclusions based assume coming into the discussion. I encourage you read what I wrote clearly and stop to ask yourself what is he saying instead of what you assume I'm going say. I also would like your answer to my actual poin in this:

"If you read my most recent posting and even the one your responding to you will see why are problems with your defense. Why two? Why consensual? Based on who definition? Why are they objectively right?"