This was clear, concise and really just beautiful.

i don't feel the need to impose my morals on people... nor do i feel the need to delve into the private lives of people.

So you're the exception. Well done!

This coming from the guy who's anti gay rights because of what they do in their private lives.

Government constantly regulates what people do in their private lives as well as all sorts of transactions between consenting adults - and we all largely agree to it. What's the point, squee?

i'm not anti gay rights. i just don't condone homosexuality. God doesn't love homosexuals any less than He loves me.

We know, its only homosexual acts God hates, yada yada, which is people's private lives, not the person. The point is that his decision on other ppl's private lives is coming from his religion, which is the topic being addressed in the video and his earlier comment. i'd say feeling in the position to condone or not is imposing morals.

squee - what is law if not an imposition of morals, generally the morals established by a majority of the people in a republican system?

Would you support the right of a brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son to marry? Let's add some addition conditions - both spouses in this marriage would be confirmed to be sterilized prior to marriage, no abuse has occurred, and both are consenting adults. With the primary concerns of incest out of the way - reproduction and abuse - what possible opposition could you offer?

Let's even leave one of the conditions out - both spouses are capable of having children. It is well known that incestuous sexual relations lead to offspring with birth defects, but this is not always the case. If one bases marriage on this condition - that a high risk of offspring having birth defects should allow the state to prevent consenting adults from engaging in sexual activity - should the state then have the right to sterilize or otherwise prevent from engaging in sexual relations those with defects passed on through genetics? If so, to what extent must this be done - only for severe disabilities, or should we extend it to colorblindness? Who gets to choose?

What about the imbalance of power argument? Should the state step in and assure a perfect or near balance in all relationships?

Is there, perhaps, another reason I'm missing here? It's possible, but other than morality and traditional mores, feelings that one could argue are "hardcoded" in human beings and that certainly have a backing in the holy writ of most major religions I can think of, it's difficult to find a reason to outlaw incestuous marriages. Yet the government does and the overwhelming majority of citizens support it. Does this not consist of an imposition of morals, affecting relationships between consenting adults?

Tsk, Chepibe you're once again comparing apples with oranges. Without getting into your whole philosophical debate about morals can you (or Tekiran) explain, without subjective religious dogma, some objective points that you have against letting gay people marry? Usually the arguements I hear are based on flawed studies or eventually break down into because God, Allah, Yahweh, etc said so. If you put your religious beliefs aside I doubt you will find any justification for your anti-gay stance.

How about you try and stay on topic for a change. Gays and incest, not the same thing. But hey you're obviously ok with imposing morals, if i think not admitting why you really do so. But the reason you do so is important to whether its ok, and people are going to take issue with anything thats not reality-based, which is pretty much what the video says. There's a time and place for imposing morals, but doing so based on religious reasons is not ok, given that its supernatural, fairy tales, not true for anyone outside their head. Religion is a massive exception we make to a system that otherwise requires logical reasoning and substance in the decisions we make and policies that are set.
You impose your morals because of your religion. Thats what the video says you do. Just don't say you don't.

Sure I do impose my morals on others.

And you impose your morals as well.

Do you oppose incestuous marriages? If so, please put forward an argument that does not invoke morality with the conditions that the marriage is between consenting adults who are both incapable of having children. Or do you still oppose incestuous marriage of the type described in spite of the fact that many of the arguments put forward in support of homosexual marriage - the government should recognize, support, and subsidize loving relationships between consenting adults - could be just as easily applied to incestuous marriages?

Both squee and hooch constantly want to impose morals. Only their morals come from other sources, supposedly making them OK. There's nothing wrong with imposing morals - all law is based on it. But the deision of who gets to use what morals from which sources and for what reasons is a decision of the people who form the culture.

Piss and moan about what should be the source of these morals all you wish - these arguments do not, and should not, affect the vote of the people, who ultimately decides what is and what is not enforced.

So, squee, answer the question - would you support the right of incestuous couples to marry provided that neither is capable of having children, no abuse has occurred, and that they are both consenting adults? If so, that's your call. If not, please explain how you would justify such a decision without invoking your own morality and forcing it on others and how this differs significantly from arguments in support of homosexual marriage - that loving, consenting adults should be able to enter into government recognized relationships. (California, for example, allows for cousins to marry, but not brothers and sisters. Why the discrimination?) Also, why should you be able to put forward this argument?

The argument here is clearly not one over incestuous marriage - it's about imposing morals and who can do it and why.

you know, i don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married. they should be able to receive all the social security benefits and the like. there are plenty of horrible marriages where i don't think the people deserve that and i'm certain that some of the gay partnerships would be healthier than a lot of the typical marriages. the main problem that i see is that christians have this different idea of "marriage" than what the government uses. they place marriage up on this spiritual pedestal, while the government sees it as more of a checkbox on a tax form.

So naturally if given the choice to give a segment of society equal human rights, you'd vote against it because you disagree with the WORDING, which apparently overlaps with some spiritual pedestal. Nice to see that you have your priorities straight.

no. not the case. as i said, they should get all the tax breaks and everything that i, as a heterosexual, am able to receive. just because i don't agree with their lifestyle and consider it wrong, does not mean i'm on a witch hunt and am full of spite towards them. any christian that hates a homosexual person just because of their lifestyle, is wielding God wrongly.

all i was saying on the wording is that, when a law is passed to allow homosexuals to marry, it's "marriage" in a legalistic sense. when christians hear this, though, they tie the word to their perspective of marriage, which is the sanctity of the bond between two people in God's name. they are failing to admit something, though. they see this holy matrimony as being tainted by these "heathens". they think the sin of homosexuality is going to mar "marriage" as a whole. what they don't admit, though, is that they are sinners too, and they entered into marriage with the same tarnishing of sin as the homosexuals, and are in no position to point fingers.

so yea, from a christian view, i do think homosexuality is bad. and i think that marriage would probably just enable them to continue doing that which i consider bad. but i'm not going to deprive someone of rights just because of my opinion.

Can I bring this around full circle...

I do not think that Pat is standing up for dis-belief. Stemming from the fact that there is no God, he is stating facts. Other people who believe in God state their belief and faith.

Just because there is not a God doesn't mean that I am an un-believer. I'm normal. It's the religious that should be labeled with their specific title rather than stating that I am an atheist or an un-believer.

So basically, I'm not anything and I don't need to be a something. It's you who have faith that have labels. You that believe are Christians. It's you who kinda believe that are Agnostic. Me? I'm not an atheist because I don't have to not believe. I am what I am. (Which makes me a Popeyeist.)