Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread... (Page 6)

I would agree with the statement that just because I believe something is true doesn't make it so. That's not quite what you wrote there, but if that's what you meant then I'd agree.

Then we agree on your first point.

Anybody else want to agree or disagree with Breen's point that there is Truth with a capital T?

As to your second point, do you think that we can come to know at least some of it?

So then you should rephrase your discussion of "truth" to be "my truth", rather than casting it as if it were a universal Truth.

"So, in respect of reproduction, albeit not in respect of other activities (such as locomotion or digestion), the mated pair is a single organism; the partners form a single reproductive ­principle: They become one flesh." That is a beautiful idea that Skeletor (baby's nickname) is literally the uniting of my husband's and my flesh. It really is... However, that beauty, this wonderful thing that makes me fart a lot and makes my hips hurt, has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage, gay or straight. I also still maintain that our reproductive act is not what makes our marriage. It's not why I married Eric.

First, I trust that you weren't putting words in my mouth but just using the pronoun "you" to make your point. For the record, I don't condemn you for being gay and don't believe that your are unequal to me.

Yes, I agree that the question of what gives one the right to impose a moral judgement on others is valid and not itself a moral judgement.  However, claiming that someone does not have a right to impose a moral judgement on someone else is a moral judgement.

If you support and pass a law that restricts my right to try to define marriage as only between one man and one woman, then you are imposing your morality on me.

Now, you may very well be right about what the moral equation is and I could be dead wrong. None the less, you would be imposing your morality on others.

If that's the case, then you can't argue against the principle that we have the right to impose our morality on others. All you can do is argue about what is moral and what is immoral in a particular case.

Great, thanks! This gets back to the main point.

Baby Skeletor isn't his/her? self the two in one flesh union, but rather a gift that is received from the two in one flesh "marriage".

This is only possible within heterosexual intercourse.

Other types of sexual acts are a merely means to some other end, bonding, pleasure, ect. However, the conjugal act in marriage is an end in itself.

No, just trying to establish that there is a "truth" and that it is not dependent on anyone's "beliefs".

I disagree...If I was attacking the institution of marriage, I would say that heteromarriage is wrong...look at the divorce rate and Britney Spears and yada yada yada...that is an attack...I want to be treated with equality and respect, if the out come of that is that marriage only can be performed in churches and civil unions is the only way to make it equal to all...then so be it...but it is not the intent...I guess again, it come down to what you think an attack is.  I see it as a willful act meant to damage a being or thing...which is not the case with gays seeking equality....if anything we are exalting marriage not attacking it.

No and yes...I think we can control our feelings and act through reason, but our feelings are still there...and often times that is the personal trials we all go through in life.  The conflict of reason and emotion...but when reason seems unreasonable, and our feelings on something see so natural and so right...then all that is left is our feelings.  I trust mine to tell me to do the right thing.  And I am a very good and nice person, so I trust mine to lead me in the right direction when it comes to matters of social justice...unfortunately, fiscally, my feelings get in the way of reason....I know this and can usually control my feelings and go with reason...i.e. not spending $100.00 on a race when I havn't paid all the bills or bought our food...and I know it is going to be a tough month even with out spending the money on the race...so I do what reason tells me...I still don't see how you are acting on reason tho...nothing you have said now or in the past, has seemed like reason to me. 

There may be, but your personal definition of "marriage" is not one.  It is your belief of truth, not a univerval fact.

Because marriage isn't just a committed monogamous relationship, rather it includes the reality of this two in one flesh uniting of persons into a single organic principle.

If that's not the case, then explain why marriage ought to be limited to only two persons.

I'm calling "strawman" here, as you are so fond to do to other's.

This is not about allowing polygamous marriages, it is about gay marriages.

There is not reason nor am I advocating "only two" as stated, I know several people in polyamorous relationships lasting longer than most marriages last.  In the future may there be a place in the government for such relationships...thats the answer I don't know.  Am I monogomous now...yes...have I been in the past...no....but I think that is a subject for a different thread. 

 I'll throw in here that I do not think marriage intrinsically includes the two in one flesh idea, nor do i think it need be limited to only two persons.

Just my $.02

No, it's an attempt to draw attention to the distinction that exists only in a marriage between one man and one woman. This two in one flesh union does not exist in any other type of sexual act or relationship.

OK.

I disagree, but you both are consistent.

Marriage is not required for the gift .. it is a label designed by man

But why only two? Michael and Breen have said they believe it doesn't need to be only two.

Hey, don't ask him to defend his beliefs because of what I believe

Let's be clear; I do not think I could survive in a polyamorous relationship, but I don't necessarily think those who want to should not be allowed to.

I gave a few examples before.

There are a few other paths to go down to answer your question.  One is that it perpetuates the notion of moral relativism. In the micro that may not seem like a big deal when you're just talking about the couple next door. In the macro, it's a very big deal.

Again, our country was founded on natural law. Moral relativism rejects natural law. If the materialists who champion moral relativism are correct, and natural law does not exist, then we are not in fact endowed with unalienable rights. If that's the case, then you can not make any philosophical moral appeal whatsoever about any act. All you can do is appeal to power.

I understand what you're saying. It's clear. And I respect your consistency, as I do Micheal's. 

Thanks, Scott.

So there's three votes for allowing polyamorous "marriages".

And regarding your other post, I agree that the gift of a child does not come only from within a marriage. Clearly. 

I'm not sure about what you meant by "labeling".