Quote: Animalman said: I can respect that, though I kind of thought that's what this thread was meant for(re-opening the discussion, in a more civil manner).
Ah yes, but you see, I have not the will power to continue such a chore. It has good intent, but I'm too drained on the subject at this point.
Quote: 1.Do you mean idea or ideal? I only ask because I don't see it as an ideal-not ideal situation, I wouldn't want there to be a grey area.
Hm...I suppose I mean "ideal" since legal consent is definitely the most fought over conviction for people who are pro gay-marraige. They're more absolute in that area, so...yeah. "ideal".
Quote: 2.When you say you won't comment on it, do you mean it in the sense that it's too subjective to actually debate, or that it's too "taboo", and you fear it will sidetrack the discussion? Or something else?
A little bit of both actually. I see it as subjective since I ascertain that homosexuals suffer from a mental disease and that "consentual" implies more than face value. Plus, "consentual" is partly based on the idea that one can then properly choose, in the eyes of the law, to have sex because not only have you matured mentally, but physically. The fact that the sphincter can never actually mature for such treatment as intercourse concerns me in not only the credibility of the decision for who's eligible to maintain a "consentual" opinion, but also the possible flexibility of its context (kids legally having sex at young ages). I realize many people here disagree with that, so, forseeably, it's gonna be addressed immensly. I have no wish to argue it over again. And I was actually just preparing to conceed the argument since the psychological angle is my deciding factor when it comes to legalizing gay marriage and making it a right. I got into it pretty heavily with Jim here. After that, and some other arguments in the "Canada allows" thread, there's not much more I can say on the subject.
Quote: In a semi-perfect world, where there were no opportunistic extremist groups(and by that I'm referring to those that would try to push for the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality if homosexual marriage is allowed; which I agree might happen), would you be OK with same-sex marriages in a NON-religious form, pperformed outside from churches/temples/etc.?
Speaking from a secularist point of view. Yes. I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't show any disgust, but as long as those couples understand my beliefs as an alternative, I don't really have a problem. To know that you understand something diverse of your current beliefs actually exists is enough for me to stop arguing...Of course I continue arguing most of the time cuz' some of those interpretations about my religion are wrong, but that's irrelevent.
Quote: I think that sentiment has merit as well. That doesn't mean that I think it's an acceptable justification for discriminating against gays, but I'd be lying if I said that didn't concern me at all.
I think "discriminating" is too strong a word, I understand where you're coming from in the sense that there's inadvertant view discriminatory back-lash since some people think this subject a no brainer (although that can be said for both sides).
