Gay marriage views?

[Adamc]

Pro gay marriage for reasons I've probably enunciated elsewhere, but the preferable solution is to abolish marriage altogether. Outdated and pointless institution.

[Ikki]

Reckon we should just let Benchy and Spikey be happy...

[benchmark00]

I'd be the man obv.

[G.I.Joe]

the "sanctity of life" argument put forward by pro-lifers supposedly holds all human life sacred...whatever they may mean by sacred...there are no exceptions in that basic argument...but when the same people believe in capital punishment (in an obviously flawed judicial system) and pre-emptive wars, they are contradicting themselves...and when they are called upon to justify their stance conveniently alter their "principle" at the altar of expediency and even quote from the christian bible to "emphasize" their "point"...for me this is sheer hypocrisy and shows that there is no grounding in any consistent moral principle (outside of the bible of course which is anyway riddled with contradictions) for what these people believe...i don't know whether you are arguing for the sake of arguing or you actually believe in your comments...but i do know that i am not interested in repeating myself again and again and indulging in cyclical arguments...

Yet again you choose to not see the point. You're so wrapped up in wanting to lump all the pro-lifers into one group that you refuse to admit that there are sub-sets that perhaps don't share the same basic belief of 'sanctity of all life'. Believe it or not, it is indeed possible that exists a sub-set of the pro-life movement that considers guilt a major determinant, not 'sanctity of life', and it is that which drives them to consider abortion unacceptable and capital punishment acceptable. You wouldn't need to indulge in cyclic arguments if you would consider that it would be unfair to lump them all together under the garb of hypocrisy and inconsistency.

[Outswinger@Pace]

In a truly evolved society, I believe that contractual marriage wouldn't be necessary. Until that happens, the rules ought to be the same for everybody. A state that makes provisions for heterosexual marriage must also legally recognise homosexual marriages.

The social definition(s) of "marriage" may be different depending on who you speak with, but that shouldn't be one of the state's legislative considerations.

[Sanz]

Yet again you choose to not see the point. You're so wrapped up in wanting to lump all the pro-lifers into one group that you refuse to admit that there are sub-sets that perhaps don't share the same basic belief of 'sanctity of all life'. Believe it or not, it is indeed possible that exists a sub-set of the pro-life movement that considers guilt a major determinant, not 'sanctity of life', and it is that which drives them to consider abortion unacceptable and capital punishment acceptable. You wouldn't need to indulge in cyclic arguments if you would consider that it would be unfair to lump them all together under the garb of hypocrisy and inconsistency.

Joe, "guilt" determinant works when it's the individual's own/personal situation, I personally fit in that category and despite being a pro-choice for others I am strictly a pro-life in my personal situation.

Why would you feel guilty for someone's else's actions ?

[silentstriker]

If you thought it was murder, wouldn't you oppose it no matter who is doing it?

[Sanz]

But Capital Punishment is also a form of murder only, is it not ?

[benchmark00]

Murder is unlawful killing.

Capital punishment, in the jurisdictions where it is allowed, is not unlawful so it's not murder.

Abortion, in the jurisdictions where it is allowed, is not unlawful so it's not murder.


Open and shut case here people.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I personally I know some religious people who consider both capital punishment and abortion to be unreasonable violations of the sanctity of life. There's obviously a major political movement out there that uses religious arguments to claim that abortion is immoral but doesn't apply the same religious principles to capital punishment, but it's not universal.

Also...

Murder is unlawful killing.

Capital punishment, in the jurisdictions where it is allowed, is not unlawful so it's not murder.

Abortion, in the jurisdictions where it is allowed, is not unlawful so it's not murder.


Open and shut case here people.

While that is obviously true, there's a difference between the legal meaning and the contextual use of the word. It's not uncommon to use murder to mean the intentional killing of an undeserving person, and in fact the claim that "abortion is murder" is used a lot by pro-life activists and stuff. To give another example, the killing of civilians, POWs etc during wartime is not necessarily always "unlawful", or at least it hasn't always been in past wars, but I imagine most people would still consider it murder if it was intentional.

[benchmark00]

Murder is a legal term d00d.

Murder implies something contravenes the law.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Right... but people don't only use the word with reference to the specific laws that actually apply to whatever example they are discussing. It certainly makes reference to the legal meaning of the word, but "murder" is often used to describe the intentional killing of another person that the speaker thinks should be unlawful, even if it's technically not. Hence "abortion is murder" being a pro-life rallying cry in the US.

[benchmark00]

Just because some group uses the term 'abortion is murder' it doesn't mean they're using it correctly... that's the point.

[BoyBrumby]

Think "murder" can be used as a verb unproblematically in a metaphorical sense "Adele's murdered that song", but suspect a lot of pro-lifers mean it literally.

How did we move from gay marriage to this? Unwanted pregnancy not a massive issue in the homosexualist community.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just because some group uses the term 'abortion is murder' it doesn't mean they're using it correctly... that's the point.

What they are saying is that in their opinion abortion meets the criteria of murder and thus should be considered such even if it isn't right now. Laws can change, after all. Are you really saying that the word has no potential uses outside of reference to whichever specific legal system has jurisdiction? Say a legal system in which it was legal for a man to kill his wife if he chose, nobody could refer to that act as murder because technically it's actually legal? Or the lynching of slaves with no legal rights? That's not technically murder but the word obviously has applications in that specific example.

It's a legal term with a specific meaning but it has rhetorical uses related to but not making specific reference to the law. "Abortion is murder" is one such use, even if it's horse**** in my opinion.