It rarely works because it's not a particularly compelling argument.
Given an arbitrary enough set of premises, you can prove basically anything to be true (sometimes arising in a contradiction, which is usually evidence that one or more of your premises is wrong).
Anyway, as for the "No Harm" element, by your logic, the state shouldn't pay any attention to marriage. That is, marriage should remain fully a sacrament of religious institutions, and should grant no tax incentives, not have any impact on who you can visit in the Hospital, and a whole bunch of things that people just flat-out aren't okay with.
If you wanna take that position, fine-it's not internally inconsistent (and actually is closer to my own), but it has certain other side effects.
edited 14th Feb '11 11:25:02 AM by TheyCallMeTomu
Well if some guy is putting the moves on a tranny and he later finds out she is actually a dude; i can kind of understand his The fuck is going on here attitude.
When it comes to gay guys a straight guy wouldn't really have justification for gay panic; it's not like they were hitting on them from the get go. if you're there to look for women you can sleep with, how would you have time to know a gay guy is eyeballing you?
Shit happens I suppose.
edited 14th Feb '11 11:35:19 AM by Kino
Appeal to Tradition. Marriage is not in our nature at all. It's a societal construct that allows a couple to tell the governeing authority of the culture they live in they are a romantic unit. There is nothing about this that excludes gay marriage.
See my above statement.
"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-WraithWhat is this definition of 'natural' I keep hearing about when people say homosexuality goes against human nature? Can't mean "found in nature" because pigs, dolphins, and a bunch of other creatures engage in homosexual activity.
We come up with new stuff all the time, a the institution of marriage has gone through many transformations, one more won't be the last.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Wrong
. Good night.
I'd just like to point out that homosexuality in animals is a mistake, as all animals except dolphins and bonobos have sex for the sole purpose of reproduction. There was actually something in the news a few years back about two male penguins stealing eggs because they couldn't make them themselves.
@Jethro: Oh please. It's extremely easy for Western intellectuals to come in and define any lasting homosexual relationship as "marriage" if it suits their ideology to. The question is whether any culture's emic (own) perspective is "this is identical to a man marrying a woman and perpetuating a family."
Show me a language with the same word for marriage as previously defined (one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, or one woman and a set of brothers) and homosexual pair bonds, and that would prove homosexual marriage has occasionally existed. Remember: emic, not etic (what an outsider declares it to be).
I also found it funny that you'd cite "It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)." to argue against the rulers of a state declaring this by fiat being an arbitrary act of will by tyrants.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardRott, give us one good reason why we should care?
Social constructs in the past basically were for economic reasons. Now, they're more for reasons related to liberty and the social and mental well being of citizens. We have evolved beyond those times.
Learn to live with it; you're arguing that homosexual marriage violates some tenant that no one other than yourself follows.
edited 14th Feb '11 12:52:21 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Give me one good reason why we should care about equality?
Evolved? Oh please. You're no different from your ancestors of 60,000 years ago: a bipedal chimpanzee with the ability to reason.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardRe: 'it's a choice so you can't criticize it' I consider it morally wrong to have sex with children, even for a person biologically programmed to be attracted to kids (it appears that pedophilia is probably just as innate as homosexuality is). If you want to have sex with kids, well, I feel sympathy for you, but you still shouldn't do it.
"Does that mean we shouldn't punish murderers and rapists, because maybe they didn't have a choice when it came to their aggressive feelings?"
Maybe. I don't think there's any moral imperative to punish anyone for any action. We have a moral imperative to protect people from harm, such as murder, rape or sexual abuse. If punishment serves as a deterrent to engaging in harmful behavior, then it's morally justified. But if not, then punishment is just pointlessly hurting someone, and that's wrong. So, for example, I support jails mainly as 'spatial prophylactic' (if you're in jail you have less opportunity to commit crimes) but not as punishment, because it's been a dismal failure in deterring people from crime. I'd like to see jails run more like mental hospitals, where you're in until someone decides it's safe to release you, and treatment is readily available. Oh, and if you have characteristics indicating a very high risk that you'll commit crimes (for example, you're a psychopath) then you can be locked up even if you haven't done anything yet.
But I'm getting off topic.
I support gay rights, mainly because I don't see any moral distinction between two opposite gender adults consenting to sex with each other and two same gender adults doing so. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, but if it were, it would make no difference to me.
If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

@kashchei:
Yes, I know. I bring up that modern orthodoxy is only one of many philosophical systems so it can be argued which is true through dialectical reason.
It rarely works.
@Beholderess:
I dispute that there's no harm. The state creating a new definition of marriage with no anthropological precedent stabs at the heart of the principle that the state has limited powers.
It doesn't matter if homosexual acts are bad, neutral, or good. What matters is that you can study every extant non-Western culture and every documented extinct one back to the Sumerians and you'll always find that marriage is defined as a contract between one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, or one woman and a group of brothers, for the rearing of children. That has been universal. That is our nature.
Homosexual marriage means the state is at war with the physical world in the name of equality. Claims of total power for the state in the name of an ideology are combined with struggle against flesh and blood reality. Is this starting to remind you of anything...?
edited 14th Feb '11 11:19:33 AM by Rottweiler
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard