Replies

I would argue that the world is much more moral today. We have equality of political power in many countries, slavery only exists is a small portion of the planet

That's true and good. More people living in free and democratic societies is obviously a moral good. I don't see how it follows, though, that the world is much more moral. Political freedom does not ipso facto give rise to moral behavior.

What I see here is that we said that we believe in freedom, but some of us don't want others to have the freedom to commit sexual sins and we don't want homos to have the same access to society. We are afraid to practice the very freedom we subscribe to.

You are confused as to what constitutes freedom. You are confusing it with license. They are not the same thing. And the threat presented by gay marriage is not some reactionary puritanical concern with sexual sins. (Do you really believe that?) It's a deep concern about a tiny minority dictating to an overwhelming majority the new definition of an institution that the wisdom of thousands of years tells us is essential to a successful society.

Just want to address one of your points. It doesn’t seem to be a “tiny minority” in favor of same-sex marriage. It seems to be a steadily increasing number of people, actually. Over 50% in some polls.

When California was the first state to legalize interracial marriage in 1948, 90% of people opposed it. In fact, the first time polls showed people opposed to interracial marriage were in the minority was 1991! It may seem unbelievable to many of us now, but it took that long for half the population to come around. There are still people who oppose interracial marriage, but they are now indeed a “tiny minority.”

Make of it what you will. I certainly find it “interesting” in light of current events.

In the first issue I was addressing a poster who was giving the "we're going to hell in a hand basket" argument. Not saying that freedom leads to moral behavior. In fact, I think I said that if you have freedom it will lead to some behaviors you think are immoral or that you just plain don't like.

When someone exercises a right, in this case to right to decide to whom they will be married, it may be overturning thousands of years of practice. So what? Don't some practices need to be overturned for the sake of equality? Isn't that a good thing.

We can argue that there is or is not a right to marry, but as long as the government sets up benefits and legal restrictions then how do you justify leaving these people out.