Originally Posted by Alindawyl
It devalues the entire institution of marriage. Just as rampant cohabitation does. Just as no fault divorce does.
The more people lie, the more they cheapen the truth. It causes scandal, leading others into error by giving the impression that the truth is not important.
And therein lies the core of the argument in favor of homosexual marriage. Being against homosexual marriage is seen as discrimination because marriage has already been redefined as a public profession of some nebulous feeling (not a free act of the will, but a mere feeling) we call love. If love is only a feeling, and that feeling is the only criteria necessary for marriage, then marriage should be open to anyone who claims to have this feeling.
And of course if they no longer have the feeling, it naturally follows that divorce should be just as available. So why support marriage on the basis of this feeling but not divorce on the basis of a lack of this feeling?
Or is it possible that marriage is more than just a feeling?
Do I specifically seek to damage people if I support keeping theft illegal? Or do I possibly have a different motivation? Say, one grounded in moral principles rather than this feeling of righteous indignation you posit here?
I see and understand your points. I'm not dense, I get it.
Let me try a different tactic. Do you fear that when you deny someone a right based on your religious beliefs you open yourself up to that same criticism? I get that you are morally against it based on your religious beliefs, but where do we draw the line?
If you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on your religious beliefs you make yourself very vulnerable. You're inviting the state into your churches - your forcing the state's hand to dictate what one can and cannot do in the name of religious freedom. Should we amend the constituion to allow women priests? It won't stop there. It's frightening to me.