Good. At least we’re arguing the same thing. When you suggested earlier that you disagreed with the statement you should be able to do anything unless someone shows that it causes harm, you had me worried.

I thought I had some time to compose a more complete comment, but a friend has just come in and is dragging me off, so I’ll come back to this later.

TRiG.

Or, why bother? It’s not my country, and if you want to elect a woman to bring yourselves back to the stone age, that’s your problem. Well, mainly your problem. It’s her anti-science stance that bothers me most, I think.

PALIN/CLEESE.

TRiG.

I just don’t see where I say that rights should be restricted without reason. I gave my reasons for not accepting same-sex marriage. I say it “harms” society. You don’t believe it harms society. We disagree, but I still have a reason for the right to be restricted.

So accordingly, the debate should be on whether or not same-sex marriage is harmful to society. I believe it is, you believe it isn’t. I’ve read studies that show that it is harmful you’ve read studies that it isn’t.

If you go back to the OP, I was talking about Google’s contention that this was a matter of privacy and equality. You admitted first that marriage is not a private act. My mistake was in forgetting that the CA supreme court had overturned Prop. 22. You can make whatever leap you want to name call.

I know I’ll never convince you, but the right to marry a person of the same-sex is not a human right. I wish to restrict people’s right to marry whoever they want because I believe it will harm society.

Look, I’m going to give you the final say because I’ve said everything about this that I want. As you may have noticed, this blog is about how my religious beliefs affect my daily life. I have not brought this into this discussion as that was not the point. However, as this will be my comment on this topic I will say this. I cannot in good conscience condone something that is wrong. I believe that homosexuality is a sin just as lying, stealing, murdering, hating, lusting and all the other things that I do are sins. I believe that Jesus Christ died for those sins. I wish all people to know this, straight, gay, whatever. By condoning this I would be depriving people of what they need to know.

I call you confused because, after presenting this attempt at a reasoned argument, you then go on to suggest that argument of this kind is not actually necessary, and that we can and sometimes should restrict people’s rights with no reason at all. You claim correctly that I believe “you should be able to do anything unless someone shows that it causes harm”, and you suggest that you do not share this belief.

We’ll never get anywhere in this debate until we can clear up what we’re actually debating. Who has to make a case here? I maintain that rights should be restricted only with good reason, and that it is up to you to provide those reasons. We can then debate the accuracy of the reasons presented. But now you seem to be shifting the goal, implying that you don’t need to make a case, but can abridge people’s rights on a whim.

Finally, this entire discussion is about Proposition 8 in California, and Google’s socially responsible take on the same, so what you said is somewhat disingenuous. “I wasn’t thinking about California.” Hmm. Remove the last two words from that sentence and you might be more accurate.

Thanks for your admission, by the way, that you want to remove people’s human rights. It’s nice to be clear who the bad guys are.

TRiG.

Based on your statement that “.. the arguments must be made by those who wish to restrict rights…” and your belief that polygamy and polyamory shouldn’t be restricted I get the picture that you are an ultra-libertarian. Meaning, you should be able to do anything unless someone shows that it causes harm. I really have a hard time grasping this world view because you have to define “harm” in each case which would be the same problem as you point out with having to define every human right.

One last point, in my original comment, I did point out that you can find instances where non-traditional families raise well adjusted children. The book you cite is simply anecdotal evidence of such cases. A book could also be written on single-parent children who loved it. Does that mean that it should become the norm?

TRiG.

Also, it’s silly to argue in favour of every human right. It would take years. Should tall people be allowed to marry? Should redheads be allowed to vote? Should blonds be allowed to adopt children? Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Should gay people be allowed to drive? It’s ridiculous. Instead, the arguments must be made by those who wish to restrict rights, and to date I have yet to see any good arguments. The main one seems to be “My invisible friend doesn’t like it”, and I discount that.

Your claim that heterosexual marriages raise children better than “non-traditional” marriage does not bear scrutiny. Abigail Garner’s book Families Like Mine is an excellent resource for this subject.

So you’re lying about human rights and wrong about benefits to children. What else? Oh, yes. “Your explanation also doesn’t explain why polygamous and polyamorous marriage should be discriminated against.” That’s because it shouldn’t. (Unless you can come up with a good reason, which, given your record to date, I doubt.)

TRiG.

I don’t see how I want to restrict hospital visitation rights. Visitation rights are the policy of a hospital. I have no contract between myself and my parents, but they are allowed to see me in a hospital. If a hospital wants to restrict all my visitors to those that I have a contract with that also includes the state, well I would probably go to another hospital. But I understand your point, I just don’t agree with same-sex marriage as the way to address this single example.

Finally, I would please ask that you clean up your rhetoric. You say, “Why do you want to take rights from gay couples?” I am not seeking to take away any rights, you are seeking to grant rights. And if your strongest argument for same-sex marriage is hospital visitation rights, you need a better reason than that to change a fundamental structure of society.