Again, mods, please move this to the appropriate section.
Nice try, but I can point out philosophical errors that have effects on a society, whether you recognize them or not. Case and point, your definition of "marriage" is the most common definition of "marriage" within society. You define it, generally speaking, as "two people who love each other, and want to spend their lives together." By that definition, it's not a surprise to see homosexuals angry about not being given some sort of legal "right" to get "married". However, that is not the definition of marriage, it has never been the definition of marriage, and simply because it's become an accepted definition within a small sect of human history, doesn't make it so.
If the definition of marriage really is "man and woman" then it's good that the definition is being modified to fit changes in society. Just as a black person was once defined as property and then that definition changed to fit our enlightened realizations about equality and humanity.
On marriage, let me say this. Marriage was not the creation of any law or government. Meaning, government did not give humanity "marriage", nor did any law passed by man. The joining of man, with woman, can be traced to the very beginning of time when God gave man a helpmate. Don't misunderstand me, because that doesn't mean that women's place is strictly beside a man in marriage, doing what he says all the time. To the contrary. The joining of man and woman is mystical. It is still the cornerstone of society, and always will be, because the propagation of the human race depends on the mysterious relationship between MAN AND WOMAN, not man and man, or woman and woman. The sheer biological differences in the relationships should tell you enough. But I suppose the importance of literally propagating the human race isn't evidence enough for most people in this liberal/secular society.
The way we understand marriage today was given to us by the Church, therefore by God. Marriage is a Holy Sacrament of the Church. It's not a legal status granted by our government. But liberal progressive philosophy seeks to diminish "moral" standards. Like you eloquently suggested, morality is subjective. That it's up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong, based on "personal" interpretation. That's not true. Moral law is not subjective to the individual. Neither is secular law. If secular law is not subjective, why should moral law be any different? Fact is, it's not. If it's morally wrong to abuse children, it's morally wrong for anyone to abuse children. It's not ok for me to do it simply because "I determine" it's not morally wrong.
This is moot point because not everyone believes in god and not everyone subscribes to the same religious teachings that you do.
Also, it's not like everyone is going to eventually become gay, there will
always be straight people who will want to have children and "propagate the human race", have no fear. My point is that it's not evidence of moral decay or societal degradation when some people might not want what other people want. In fact, it's proof of further enlightenment in society. You want to talk about invading people's personal lives? Let's talk about that that then. Let's talk about how if you really want a true sense of individualism and freedom, then people defining their relationships, their marriages and their personal lives in whatever way they want are not exceptions to that ideology.
This is a truism that you cannot change with any amount of philosophy or ideology. Men cannot bear children. Men cannot have children with other men. The simple biological fact is testament to the important nature of the man/woman relationship. It is the only way to propagate the human race.
Yes, good. No one is on the other side of this issue.
Unless of course you do something "un-natural" (no judgement on that comment, just stating that AI isn't "natural" conception). You see, THIS doesn't change with time. THIS doesn't change with society. It's a universal truism, and when truths are defied, or our actions run counter to universal truths, there are unintended consequences within societies.
But why should that have a bearing on things like marriage and such? My body was made with intention of reproducing, so if I choose not to reproduce am I somehow amoral or "running counter to universal truths"? My body was designed to digest things like broccoli, so if I choose not to eat broccoli am I committing some sort of moral sin? Just because I define myself in a certain way that doesn't necessarily run parallel to biological process or to your moral prescriptions, it doesn't mean I am suddenly a heathen or whatever. It doesn't mean society is decaying.
Here's the thing. For gays, I do not believe in laws prohibiting homosexuality, or the joining of two willing people of the same sex. But to define such a relationship as "marriage" is a mistake, and whether you recognize it or not, has negative effects on the institution of "marriage". It diminishes marriage by calling marriage "just two people who love each other and wanna spend their lives together." If that were the definition of marriage, then of course homosexuals should be "married". But it's not the definition. The problem is that everyone looks to GOVERNMENT to define marriage, but government did not create marriage, nor did they give humanity marriage.
The reason everyone looks to the government to define marriage is because, unfortunately, government
does define and control marriage. I'd say the fact that gay marriage is not legal across the country is actually more damaging to the happiness and productivity of people's lives than whatever argument can be mustered to the contrary. Since our society has a certain level of dependence on law-makers and therefore the government, society is directly affected by its actions. When the Obama admin spends trillions of bucks on things, taxpayers get affected. When the US military instigates a war that could be a danger to our shores, citizens get affected. So obviously, the inequality of marriage affects people. Ideally,
government should not control marriage, as I stated earlier, but if they do, then they might as well make it equal across sexual orientation.
Let's think of a hypothetical situation. Let's say government does not control marriage, who is to say how I decide to get married as opposed to how you do? I'm not getting married in your church, I'm not claiming my marriage to be a Christian marriage, I'm defining it my own way, just as you do. If marriage was not a legal matter, would you try to control my life? Would you try to prevent me from getting married to another man simply because it contradicts your own personally or religiously defined moral laws? That would be ridiculous right? So why do that at the state and federal level? It makes no sense.
If you are so worried about the human race I promise you, you have much bigger things to worry about, like global warming and nuclear war. In fact the likelihood of an alien species invading Earth and wiping out all of humanity is astronomically higher than the effect of gay marriage. Straight marriage and biological reproduction are not in danger, and it's not going anywhere, so you can calm down.
What happens when gay people get married? Does hell freeze over? Does the sky rain frogs and cockroaches down on us? No, when gay people get married, they get married and life happily ever after, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. When the definition of marriage is changed at the legal level, it doesn't magically transform you into a platypus. Literally all that happens is that gay people married, that's all that happens, I swear to you. What exactly is so bad about gay marriage anyway? Are you worried there won't be enough people to make babies? Whether gay marriage is legal or not, gay people will remain gay, and will not be "propagating the human race", or have surrogate children, or adopt, or none. So why prevent it? In fact it's actually a boon since many gay couples end up adopting unwanted children. I'm telling you man, this whole idea of the degradation of marriage is actually entirely the opposite, and my hope is that you eventually see that.
Besides, if gay marriage is really so bad and such an affront to traditional marriage, and if traditional marriage is the vital cornerstone to society, then maybe it's time we stop defining society with traditional marriage in the first place and pick something better. I wouldn't want my entire society based on something so precarious that could so easily be "damaged" by granting people equal rights.
Same goes for so many issues. Liberal progressive philosophy teaches that virtually EVERYTHING is subjective. That philosophy promotes the "me" mentality. Progressivism has replaced God with "self". We have become the center of our own universes, interpreting right and wrong based on our own "judgement" and our own "personal definitions". There is no such thing as absolute truth within the philosophy of liberalism. It's why you see liberals saying all the time, "there is no black and white, only grey". Nothing is definative, nothing is constant, and nothing is sure. When you promulgate that philosophy throughout a society over enough time, you eliminate standards, you eliminate morals, simply because things like "standards" and "morals" have all become subject to personal interpretation, freeing people to behave any which way their little hearts desire.
Interesting, because generally my view is that the only absolute truth is relativity. Maybe we just stand on opposite sides of philosophy, but I that's a discussion for another day.
Wanna abort a baby? Do it, who's to say it's right or wrong? Wanna marry your dog? Do it, who's to say it's right or wrong? Wanna spend trillions upon trillions of dollars that you don't have? Do it, who's to say it's right or wrong? Wanna force people to buy health insurance? Do it, who's to say it's right or wrong? Wanna get divorced just because you're bored? Do it, who's to say it's right or wrong? Wanna do drugs in the confines of your own home? Do it, who's to say it's right or wrong? wanna do this? do it. Wanna do that? do it.
With the exception of spending, health insurance, and marrying your dog (lol), those other things should be allowed. In a way, that's sort of what freedom looks like. A lot of people don't seem to understand that freedom goes both ways, it's not just about "allowing people to do what I'm okay with them doing".
When morality becomes subjective, a standard ceases to exist, and that's what we are seeing in society today. There is no longer a moral standard in which to hold people accountable by anymore. LIberalism teaches this is "progress" and therefore positive. I disagree. A society that can no longer control itself and be measured by a moral standard is corrupted, and by the very nature of our being, will become increasingly amoral.
There's a difference between society going against moral standards and society going against
your morals, so far it seems the latter is what's going on here.
Folks, let's stick to the topic.
