I completely agree that they can.

I know you do. I was thinking of them. Obviously they really can't, but are instead using emotion-laden words to append value judgements, and are expressing their fuzzy thinking and knee-jerk reactions to your statements on an emotional level instead of thinking things through and responding logically.

I hope that reads semi-logically. Aidan's beating me up.

critical thinking=willingness to consider that what you've previously held to be true is subject to change

Too many times people arguing from a morals standpoint equate morals with faith/belief, which is not often subject to criticism. A person can have both the capacity to criticize a subject and a firm faith in whatever, but the two occupy different spheres of thought.

IMO.

It's like that bullshit "Gay marriage undermines het marriage."

A very unproven assertion.

fuzzy thinking and knee-jerk reactions to your statements on an emotional level

Yep. "I had a bad experience with X, therefore X is evil and bad and wrong" is poor moral AND critical thinking. Seriously, fill in that blank with anything other than "porn" and it becomes ridiculous --

"I'm allergic to strawberries. Therefore, eating strawberries is a SIN."

"I was in a car accident. Therefore, driving is morally wrong."

"I was in a car accident. Therefore, driving is morally wrong."

"Satan tries to tempt me - he tells me all the errands I could get done in a day if I drove to them...."

The truth is, every marriage, gay or straight, has the capacity to undermine (or strengthen, but let's face it, we're pretty flawed, so it's usually undermine) marriage.

No-fault divorce has been one of the biggest (probably the biggest) underminers of marriage, and yet, it's also managed to be a big liberator of people who were in oppressive or abusive situations.

Too many times people arguing from a morals standpoint equate morals with faith/belief, which is not often subject to criticism. A person can have both the capacity to criticize a subject and a firm faith in whatever, but the two occupy different spheres of thought.

I don't know. Subjecting your faith to the scrutiny of criticism is scary, because what if the crit wins, but I think that sort of examination is necessary, or after a while, it's not so much faith as will.

I think it's more that it's all a big mix. Moral judgments aren't set in stone. That isn't to say everything is relative. I have an overall system of morals, that is inherent to my decision making process, and will probably change (overall) very little, throughout my life, but it is informed by the things I learn and it informs the things I learn, and how I apply it to decisions is very much dependent on all the facts of a given situation. So even though my moral system isn't relativisitic, sound moral decisions very much take into account all the facts available.

For example, Aimee just said she is morally opposed to abortion. This is one of her larger stances. We could restate this that Aimee believes human life is a good, in her moral system, and that she believes ending potential human life is not good.

That said, I'm pretty sure if a pregnant 12 year old who had been raped by her step-father showed up at Aimee's door, and said she was going to kill herself if she didn't get an abortion, Aimee would take her for medical care, including pre-natal care where she could get psychological counseling, and guidance about abortion, adoption, and gestation. And I'm pretty sure Aimee would take her to the abortion clinic, if the child still wanted the abortion after she got information and treatment from healthcare providers.

And she'd probably make her soup, after. And pick out an empowering Buffy episode for her. And send Sean and MM after the step-father.

Wha-huh? How? How does GC and her GF or Kat and Lori or our friends E &T getting married make my marriage to Joe any less than what it is? Other couples, hets included, do not have any impact on the strength of my marriage. And I resent anyone who tells me that it does.

I think there is a logic to this argument, but I think it goes farther than most people who cite it are willing to go.

I think the logic is that a real, legitimate, true-blue, godly, traditional marriage not only has a man and a woman but that a man has man jobs (being in charge/responsible, taking out the garbage, disciplining the children, whatever) and the woman had woman jobs (submitting graciously to the will of her husband, keeping the house, making babies, etc.) and that ever since we've gotten away from that gold standard society has gone to hell. Look what women's lib has done! And sex before marriage! And G-Spots! The further we get away from our proper roles the further we endanger the institution of marriage and its ability to hold society together. They really REALLY like gender roles. They find them safe and comforting and right (in a way that makes me snort painfully).

(Nevermind that modern equitable marriages seem to work quite nicely, that the 50% divorce rate is a myth, and the good old days never were so good -- I'm not saying its a solid argument.)

Marriage is already on the brink of utter destruction just the way the heterosexuals are doing it. Now we get a bunch of godless sodomites who are not only doing sex in dirty ways, they're not even CAPABLE of following the rules -- and then we'll never get them back.

Its an enormous threat. (But I don't see most people of the people citing "threat" living that sort of a pre-Lib marriage so I snort at them too)

I'm been skimming like mad (I think I have a sleeping sickeness -- I conked out for two hours this morning, and yesterday slept more than three hours on the chair in the living room with the TV on and the kids playing).

Hugs and vibes and ~ma all around.

Although I know there are people out there who believe that gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage in general (which I've always read as holy union! between man and woman!), there are others who claim that gay marriage opens up different issues when it comes to defining a family, and what that means for the legal system and aspects of it.

Health insurance, for one. I think there's a fear that if a gay couple becomes eligible for benefits, there will be a mad rush of people everywhere marrying on bogus terms to claim benefits. Me and a platonic girlfriend, for instance.

I think that argument is bullshit, but that's one of the most common reasons I've read.

::loves on Aimee just because::

Health insurance, for one. I think there's a fear that if a gay couple becomes eligible for benefits, there will be a mad rush of people everywhere marrying on bogus terms to claim benefits. Me and a platonic girlfriend, for instance.

I think that argument is bullshit, but that's one of the most common reasons I've read

It's a bullshit argument, but it also begs the question: How have we as a technologically advanced society come to allow health care to be a luxury? And isn't that, in and of itself, in some way obscene?

Health insurance, for one. I think there's a fear that if a gay couple becomes eligible for benefits, there will be a mad rush of people everywhere marrying on bogus terms to claim benefits. Me and a platonic girlfriend, for instance.

Right, because it's so much easier to be fake gay-married than to be fake het-married, if you're only in it for the health insurance.

And I know I just above said that personal anecdotes are not useful to critical arguments, but when DH and I first moved here, I couldn't be added to his health insurance until we got married, despite having been together for 5 years. If he'd been a woman, we could have claimed same-sex domestic partner status from the get-go. So I really fail to see how legalizing gay marriage will make it easier for people to cheat on their insurance forms that way.

Of course, I also think we should just have universal health care, which would solve the problem from both ends.