This is definitely true. Politics in the USA is big business for the media and there's a lot of profit to be made from keeping people riled up and tuned in.

The most interesting difference to me between the US and Canada is that there's just a lot more variation in voters in Canada than in the USA. I would say for most people, I could ask them 2-3 questions seemingly unrelated to government and guess which party they vote for with 95% accuracy. This is because in the USA, everything is tied into politics. Religion, education, science, social values, everything. Then you're (generally) forced into one of two very rigid political parties. It's a big part of why you can't start a political discussion in the USA without it quickly devolving into a discussion of things that are (or should be, anyway) totally unrelated.

In Canada you might find a Christian who votes conservative, then find another who votes liberal, then another who votes NDP, and find atheists among all the political parties as well. That very rarely happens in the USA. It's nearly impossible for a voter in the USA to switch from voting for one party to the other without a total paradigm shift in their views.

To say it's a refreshing change of pace is a severe understatement.

It is easy to say its not a rights issue for you but lets be honest it very much is about whether a certain subset of the population should have the same rights as everyone else. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to think that you support a status quo that breeds hatred, inequality and encourages the demonisation and of people and leads to people taking their own life because they are made to feel like they are worse than everyone else and can't be allowed to live their life in a way that is completely natural to them but that is exactly the result of your position.

Really? it seems to me that being gay is already acceptable. Gay marraige isn't the thing that will make being gay acceptable (I suspect the fact that there is no reason for people to view it as otherwise outside books of suspect morals that claim divine origin will do that).

There are already GAY Pride marches celebrating homosexuality and even someone as conservative as you clearly accepts it enough that you can't bring yourself to say you want it to be openly opposed. Gay marriage will only lead to gay couples having fair and equal rights.

I am curious if gay marraige was already legal would you want it made illegal?

By accepting two people having a gay relationship as being ok you have already accepted being gay as an ok thing which you claim is what you are worried about. Legalising gay marriage is about giving those in a gay relationship the same fair access to things such as protection from having their assets stolen if one of them dies.

This same argument can be used to justify mysogany, misandry, racism and pretty much any other opinion that anyone ever held. Look at it from their perspective for a moment. Assume interracial marriage is wrong and womens rights are wrong.......

This seems an unusual position for a christian that uses the bible to say homosexuality is wrong. I have not come across this before so forgive me if I completely misunderstand the position. If homosexuality is wrong because god says so and you see things against gods wishes as wrong does that not mean you view morality as gods wishes rather than everyone being free to hold their own subjective and equally valid morality?

I have never argued that it doesn't affect "you" as far as I am aware (without checking back to see if I misworded something as its normally pre 8 am here that I am typing and I have only had one coffee yet). I argued against dogggs claim that gay marriage is an anti christian motivated movement and argued that gay people being able to marry does not affect "your straight marraige". So far I have yet to be shown a single negative impact on hetero marriages if gays get to marry too. Obviously every major law etc that affects culture affects us to some degree even if it is just in an indirect sense of it changing the views of those around us such that our views are now more or less normal and accepted as a result.

Its sad and unfortunate women couldn't vote I have no idea why we saw that as a reason for contemplation do you? Its sad and unfortunate blacks didn't like being slaves.......(you get the idea)

Surely you accepting gays being allowed to be together is also a step in the death of 'christian values'. I find christian values to be very flexible as they seem to change from person to person based on what parts of the bible that person relates too (almost like the person usually has their own underlying values that they reinforce with parts of the bible)

I cut this part from my response as I don't think there was a lot of meaningful discussion we could have and it would likely have degraded the conversation. (correct me if I am wrong)

Also while the bit on politics and voting was an interesting aside to me I have already produced a rather large post (apologies) and felt I should try and trim it a little

Its all good, I appreciate the time you are taking in responding. While there is likely no hope on us ever agreeing on the main point of gay marriage, we both have very divergent ideas of what a good society would look like I think. I am certainly finding it interesting to learn more about your views and to have mine challenged so that I have to consider them more. After all if my views are never challenged how can I refine them and discard the bad ones.

That's a good observation that you can quickly surmise who votes for which party in the US, while not in Canada. When we had the Christian Alliance or whatever they were called, you could probably guess that real conservative Christians were voting for them, but you still couldn't be sure.

I don't know how people do it in the US, with politic talks all year long. Not to bash the US, but I think it's indicative of changes that people are looking for. It's the same in South America, you can't go a day without hearing about politics, and it's rooted in the culture, and I think it's because people are not satisfied. Canada, while not perfect, is not in a position where a few changes is going to impact people greatly. Just a theory.

I'm going to try to keep this really short, I think we'll soon be beating a dead horse, if we aren't already, and I've already monopolized this thread as much as any one person can. Sorry, uke. Edit: I tried to make this short, but I couldn't. I at least kept it to one or two sentences for each response.

I believe there is a difference in taking away rights because you dislike a specific group, and rights being taken away as the result of an action you take, which you feel is ultimately beneficial. Small but subtle difference, at least in motives. All to say, it's not about hatred, even if incorrect.

Edit: Note the difference between: I hate Mexicans, I don't want them in the US, and, I think we should be careful with our immigration laws because the US is becoming overcrowded and unemployment is rising. Same result, but different motives.

It's not accepted as the norm world-wide, or even country-wide, but it will be. Marriage (I believe) will encourage and speed up the process. I don't especially like pride parades, they serve some of the same purposes, which is to demand acceptance, plus it's not exactly rated G. (In a related note, Toronto is hosting world pride, think it's starts soon, I'm planning on checking it out).

If it was legal, it wouldn't change anything. I wouldn't try to make it illegal, I just wouldn't agree with it. I don't accept it as being okay (if okay = moral), I just accept that people have the right to do what they want within reason.

You're doing the same thing here that I'm trying to point out. You are grabbing an issue and suggesting the only reason to oppose it is hatred, women not voting = hating women. Even if the other reasons are ultimately wrong, that doesn't mean there are not other reasons, i.e. women not intelligent enough to make an informed choice. That's not rooted in hatred, it's rooted in a misunderstanding of people. Even if I am making the same mistake, it does not mean my motives are hateful.

Do you think it is moral for me to make you do things against your will because I think they are moral? Just because I think drinking in excess is immoral, should I force people not to drink by some radical action? You're confusing my seeing actions as immoral, and the acceptance of these actions as the norm by society.

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, and then continued to dispute the argument which I misunderstood, even if it did not apply to you. My point is still the same, which is that laws in favour of something, will naturally be against something else, and eventually changes cultural perceptions, which I believe will be for the worse, morally speaking.

This has no relevance as far as I can see, as to whether or not homosexuality is immoral or not. Your argument is basically homosexuality is inherently moral, as are these other things.

Define accepting. Do you accept drug addicts by letting them do drugs? I can accept that people who are drug addicts will do drugs, and that is there choice, but it doesn't mean I agree with their decisions, and it doesn't mean I want all drugs legal and accepted.

My point is not to make you agree that homosexuality is immoral, it's impossible for me to do that, and I can concede that I could be wrong. My only argument was that someone can disagree with gay marriage, even if just in thought, and it not be rooted in hate. Even if they disagree for reasons that are ultimately wrong (maybe homosexuality is actually moral, and I'm wrong) it is still not rooted in hate. That's my only real argument. We can agree to disagree, no hard feelings either way, I appreciate your attitude.

Don't worry about me. I have no problem with conversations going off in different places, particularly not if there isn't interest in the conversation implies by the OP and my subsequent posts.

I have a question before the horse is completely dead. If i have this right you say if homosexual marriage is illegal you wouldn't want, politically, to change that and vise versa. Not sure how that works with your views of varying countries because it would mean where it is legal you are for it, politically, and against it where it isn't. But...


Does this go for everything or just some things? Like would you want the countries which have laws that repress Christianity to stay and if you had a vote vote that way? Or an even more extreme if hypothetical if murder were legal in Canada would you be politically opposed to it becoming illegal?


Ill take my answer off the air cause i wont have time to post for a bit.

I haven't exactly thought about every situation and what I would do, but I generally tend to not rock the boat, something I've been criticized for.

I can understand that some things while immoral, are difficult to enforce and are up to the individual. Plus most things have regulations on them anyway.

Lying for instance, is sometimes just seen as immoral, and sometimes seen as illegal (perjury). You can fornicate, but you can't do it with someone under age, if you are in a position of authority over them (teacher/counsellor), or if they are unwilling. You can be profane, but not under some circumstances (in court, at church). Even killing is legal under certain regulations (self-defence, capital punishment, passive euthanasia).

Traditional marriage once meant that your partner had to be willing, had to be of legal age, you were not already under the contract of a marriage, and you had to be of different sexes. All I think is that this is the moral way, and altering it will not be beneficial to society, especially because this particular agreement is an exhibition, and will effect future perceptions. There seems to be the idea that because I believe this, I should be fighting against the cause, and I'm not sure this is my duty. I consider my duty to express my views but still accept people, and show that I can disagree but still love everyone at the same time. I am not a lawmaker, nor do I wish to be. If you ask my opinion, I'm not going to lie, I am going to say I don't think it's the best way.

If murder was being considered as a legal action, this is not only a moral concern, it's also a safety concern, I'd worry for everyone I know, and probably everyone would agree with me that it's not the best action. There is more to murder being legal than simply the acceptance of an immoral action, I don't think the two are comparable.

Well, to be honest, traditional marriage actually also once required that the pair be of the same race. And of the same religious denomination. And it didn't used to require the woman's consent so much as her father's. People back then thought that was the moral way, and to change that would ruin society.

So I hope you can see why so many of us aren't convinced by this appeal to tradition. What you actually need is a more concrete reason why it's important that a marriage only be heterosexual. I can explain easily why your other criteria for marriage matter, but not this one.

My aim in all of this was not to defend the morality of different sex marriage. My only aim was to show that there are other reasons other than "I don't like gay people" which I feel is a strawman which is far too often used.

I understand I cannot defend the morality of things, and I don't feel the need to. I'm only showing that the argument is valid, not true. IF immoral, it's not beneficial. Not that it IS immoral. That's between you and God.

On a side note, I do believe that Christians should only marry Christians, otherwise they are "unequally yoked".

Well, if I can ammend this slightly, you want to show that there is a good reason. One could surely come up with many terrible, illogical arguments that wouldn't really contribute much to this discussion.

You claim your reason against gay marriage is that it doesn't fit the traditional marriage. In my last post, I showed several(?) other 'traditional' marriages that you don't support. It would seem, then, that this reason you give isn't one you actually believe, unless there's some reason that gay marriage is special here. That's why I'm asking you to explain your reasons more.

I don't particularly want to argue whether or not homosexuality is wrong or not. There is nothing I can say that will help. I'm fine with you rejecting the claim, and believing it is perfectly moral. I never tried to argue the point, only that one must not be a bigot to reject same sex marriage.

When I say "traditional" marriage, I'm merely saying "biblically moral", I'm using these terms interchangeably, like "conservative values" and the like. For you to point to some form of traditional marriage that was questionable, doesn't affect my belief. My disapproving of same sex marriage does not mean that I need to support other forms of marriages because they were "traditional", only biblically moral. This is a question of what is moral and nothing more, and since I can concede that I cannot prove what is right, or that not everyone will agree with me, I can't possibly convince you.

When people opposed interracial marriages, they said it was because they were upholding biblical morality. I don't think anything in my prior response changes if you change any reference to traditional marriages into biblically sanctioned marriages.

I'd really like to understand what it is about being homosexual that you consider to be immoral, but it seems that you don't really want to talk about the details, as is your right. Your position might be so firm that it is beyond reach, but in case it isn't, I wonder how recently, and to what degree of scrutiny you have asked yourself the same question, since there's no-one better to answer to than yourself. What is it about a hypothetical homosexual that you can contrast with a hypothetical heterosexual such that one of them is immoral for that detail alone?

When I asked whether it was about physical sexual behaviour, you said "yes and no". When I asked you about emotional behaviour (loving their partner), I didn't get a very clear answer. Emotionally, you might agree that you couldn't differentiate between the two hypothetical persons if you didn't know the sex of their partner to be able to call one of them immoral. This makes me think that it is either something about the physical aspects of a same sex relationship, or that there is some kind of general reaction that has nothing to do with the couple themselves, but something within you as the observer. Or it could just be that you don't really know why, and you are just following scripture.

Obviously the interwebs can be misleading, but you seem like you would be a really nice person irl. This makes it all the more confounding, "nice people" can hold discriminatory beliefs about some minority of people because they are different to them. You have said a few times that you think there are legitimate reasons other than hate to hold discriminatory beliefs - and maybe there are, in some cases. But are you sure, I mean really sure that you are not deceiving yourself a little bit, related to the fact that you actually are a really nice fellow irl that you couldn't possibly be holding hateful beliefs about others.....could you? Could you be suppressing the truth in your unrighteousness?!

I hope this doesn't sound condescending, and I mean it in all sincerity. I just wanted to sneak this in before the poor dead horse was completely buried.

Not everyone will agree with you that the bible condemns interracial marriages as sinful. In the OT, this law was about not mixing with people of other races because they had other Gods. This is akin to Christians not marrying non-Christians.

Sorry if I was not clear before, I thought I was being clear. I think sometimes when there are things that make sense to you, when you explain them to people you can leave things out without realizing it, because you fill in the gaps yourself, unaware that not everyone sees it. If that makes sense.

I really don't understand why I need to hate people because I feel they are doing things which are immoral. There is no difference between someone in a gay lifestyle than any other sinful lifestyle. My friends do not adhere to the no sex before marriage rule, it's not that different, do you suppose I am hateful of them?

I'll be brutally honest with you. I've alluded to the fact that I've struggled with addictions. I still struggle to this day. The last few years have been difficult, and there are times I'm very tempted. I probably should be going to groups, and not even having one beer. Point is, how can I judge anyone if I myself have lived an immoral lifestyle, even as a Christian? It's kind of upsetting to me that people would think that of me (obviously you don't know me, I don't blame your judgement) when I truly have compassion for people, knowing what a failure I have been. I say this from the heart, I have no hate or judgement for anyone, I'm not in a position where I can judge, and my constant humiliations have given me a lot of empathy. I'm no better than anyone, and I'm probably worse, actually.

My views of morality come mostly from the bible. If God were to tell me right now that I'm mistaken about homosexuality, then it wouldn't change my perception of gay people all that much, because I don't see them as you probably think. They are just people who I think are doing the wrong thing. Just like my friends when they sleep with their partners, or me when I gave into addictions. No hate, honest.

I've never accused you of hate, but what is apparent is that you can't point to any morally relevant property of homosexuality. There is no fact about homosexuality that makes it immoral and so you are left with what the bible says. There are alternative interpretations.

Take another look at Original Position's contribution to this thread, It began with a response to you and then continued in some detail during a discussion with Aaron. It really is worth another look. Especially consider the discussion around the variety of interpretations on the relevant biblical passages available.

I think it is immoral because it is not what God had in mind. It wasn't his plan, I think it's as easy as that. Sure I draw a lot from the bible, I don't deny that.

Yeah, I remember the thread. There are interpretations other than homosexuality is immoral, I simply disagree with them. I think the plain meaning is pretty clear, at least to me. If you want to interpret it differently, that's up to you. I may have overstated how popular the popular interpretation was, although I do think that there is sometimes a conflict of interest when certain groups interpret it to their benefit. It would be like me concluding there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol.

We don't have to agree, you don't even have to think I'm justified, it's just a belief.

You have claimed to be an agnostic theist before yet you consider the bible pretty clear and authoritative on what god had in mind?

Yeah, I can't be sure God exists, I understand I could be mistaken, but I still believe in things. I believe the bible is innspired by God, knowing full well I could be wrong about many things.

I don't mean to be rude, but there is definitely a trend with you in the sense that you hold consistently claim great uncertainty and to not hold yourself to bombastic conclusions. Yet you seem to have have very little problem ending up with fairly strong choices.

That makes me suspect most of your argumentation is flipped. To use this thread as an example, I suspect you start of with your own opinion on homosexuality and then proceed to try and build arguments where those opinions must be reasonable outcomes.

There was no "because" given. It is sinful to marry outside of your tribe (not just race) according to the OT. Period. No exceptions are allowed.

What are your views on tattoos and eating lobster and ham? Those are also strictly forbidden with absolutely no exceptions allowed. All are abominations.

I am not trying to and never have tried to say the only reason to oppose it is hatred ( I think you are conflating me and dedreds who seemed to be arguing that all opposition is rooted in bigotry.

I am simply arguing that your 'try and see it from my perspective' argument is flawed in that it provides justification for anything you want to think. Would you accept a racists argument that blacks should be slaves because you should try and see it from his perspective (I am simply using black rights/womens rights as illustrators of this point as I trust we all agree these people should have equal rights now and they were previously denied them using the same arguments you are now using to defend the idea of gays being denied rights.

I was merely questioning you saying that morality is subjective when you seem to follow the divine command approach of what god says is moral is moral and thus everyone wouldn't be free to have their own equally valid moral system. It was more a curious aside though than anything important.

My argument was and still is that gays being able to marry does not in any way affect another persons existing marriage. I have yet to be shown any change that will occur to a persons heterosexual marriage if a gay couple got married. If you are married did anything change for your marriage in say 2001 when the Netherlands legalised gay marriage? Did your marriage become any less valid at that time?. Note I am not arguing that it doesn't affect individual people (in the loose fashion that it affects the society and culture they live in, although this is trivially true of any change)I am arguing it doesn't affect the validity or love of their hetero marriage.

I am pointing out that your reasoning of 'it is an unfortunate consequence that these people are subjugated and not treated fairly' could be used to defend any view that allowed for the mistreatment of other people. It was a disgusting view then and in my opinion it is a disgusting view now to flippantly dismiss the suffering of others as an unfortunate consequence. What would you think of someone that says "it is unfortunate that woman are treated like they are worse than men but well the bible says that she has to shut up and do as I tell her so that is the right way for things to be"?

Again I am not arguing all the opposition is rooted in hate, I have no trouble accepting some is ignorance (such as if we accept gays then more people will 'choose' to be gay) and some is because people have a hard time questioning the supposed good moral code laid out in a collection of conflicting ancient writings.

I echo your sentiments of no hard feelings and appreciate your openness and attitude also.

Urk, I really don't like the expression 'agree to disagree'. We can agree that we disagree (pointless), or we can agree to stop talking about something, but to agree to disagree somehow conveys an impression that I'm fine with someone disagreeing with my view. I'm not fine with it, or I wouldn't have been discussing it with them in the first place. Similarly for 'respecting' opposing views.

</semi-rant >

Um, yeah, they were forbidden under a temporary (Mosaic) law that existed thousands of years ago - what does that have to do with anything?

Really?!? Where in the OT does it say "you know, these are temporary laws"?