[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Leasing mothers as "breeders". Third party inseminators. Laboratory assistants.

I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Not only is the term "marriage" not so arbitrary that it can just include homosexual partnerhips, but raising these to the same level of social acceptance and recognition as well as tax benefits and financial revenues obviously relativises this status given and accepted and ruled for families. Plus it is damage in being a discrimination against singles. The special status of one group is only special as long as it is exycluded from other groups.

I added histgorxy and relgion only for the sake of completeness, to show that also in history acceptance of gay/lesbian marriages as equal are an exception from the rule, and that the big world relgions also speak out against it. While I do not much argue with them or moral issues, I would have these two things on my side as well, if I would.

Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it.

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.

And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.

You may see it like that. But I do not accept everything to be arbitrary in defintion of terms, and logical consusions that are not being shown wrong I refuse to give up. I try to form my opinions in that way so that later on I need to correct them as little and as rarely as possible. Somwetimes that is not possible, I feel. Then I refuse to form an opinion on something and to take a stand and defend it. But if I arrange my thoughts in such a way so that I do not see them often in need to correct them, I take that as a compliment for my thinking.

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case. And if indeed I have laid out many arguments and points that totally excluded morals, then I rate this as false talking about me and putting something in my mouth, and simplifying it and distoritng it. And after ten years in this forum I am a bit allergic against that. I assume in your favour that you maybe were not thinking about me in the main when writing that reply, however much of what your communication partner at that time had written also was not "just moral judgements".