Not within their own group, but against other religious groups.
Patton Oswald’s sky cake stand up nails it.
But is it a net increase in peace and prosperity?
Possibly, but much like the entire concept of religion, absolutely impossible to know for sure!
Probably no better thread to discuss why gays don’t deserve the same legal union and protections as straight people!
Let’s do this!
Basis for discussion.
Current existing law is such that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution to not afford gays the same legal marital status as heteros.
And it shouldn’t be and, therefore, should change is my position.
I don’t know how many enter, but only one shall leave. Come at me!
Which part of their opinion do you disagree with?
That there must be a right to marriage for homosexuals because hetero marriage has been recognized by the state.
Do you believe any laws that give special privilege to straight married people would need to be revoked if we were to make gay marriage illegal again?
Eh? I believe in state recognized hetero marriage because it serves society, and not as an ‘attaboy’ for individuals in love. I want it as the model. A norm heterosexuals are exposed to as frequently as possible. I want it to seem privileged and desirable.
If it didn’t serve a crucial function it too could not be recognized by the state for all I care.
Whelp. This didn’t take long.
Wanting a fundamentally unequal system for the sake of controlling society puts us an ocean apart. Id feel dirty even entertaining the convo.
You’re much more extreme than my family. Have a good one
Of course, I do. Good thing the moral worth of our opinions are subjective. It’s not like I’m objectively evil for believing so. There is no inherently good or evil way to conduct society. Just different opinions. You have a good one too.
Nothing is objectively evil. Evil is a subjective label assigned subjectively.
Objectively evil is an oxymoron
Then I am not objectively evil or morally wrong. Your opinion of my stance is, like, just your opinion, man. Blue is the right favorite color.
Duh. Objectively evil isn’t possible and morals are formed within.
So, anyways, if a state/society is to recognize, title, and privilege a human arrangement at all it should be because that arrangement has widespread social repercussions.
That’s where the vanishing points come in.
Homosexuality disappears tomorrow, curious news story.
Heterosexuality disappears tomorrow, species wide disaster.
Heck, if ALL men merely went from female sex partner to female sex partner with zero obligation from now on, society wide chaos.
Heterosexuality, and how it manifests, inarguably has society wide function and impact. Species wide, even
If said realities didn’t exist then the state should no more recognize hetero arrangements than it does 250 member fishing clubs as a kind of marriage if they applied. Or, relationships with trees (all adults have given consent). There would be no cause to recognize marriage at all at the state level. But, they exist. And that’s why we bother to have it recognized by the state at all, over any other imaginable arrangements a human adult, or adults, can come up with.