Its not nice for anyone to live in a society which hold the natural family in contempt and holds it to ransom to the everchanging whims of desire of its population.
Ah yes! ^__^ the 'natural family', that entirely definable and not-at-all subjective concept
And them everchanging whims!
Them nasty, nasty everchanging whims... you know... like homosexuality... that everchanging whim that has predated civilization itself
We need a totally objective moral code, which should be adhered to, regardless of its popularity. Abosolute morals exist, absolute truth exists.
The problem with relative morality is that it effectively means no-body is actually right, its all opinion and as such no-body should have any obligation to subscribe to anothers moral stance, and to force them to do such would be an infringement of their fundamental liberties.
What is this? Actual, legitimate argument!?!?
Who are you, and what have you done with Name_Taken
1) Projecting an absolute moral code onto people who don't accept it is the very infringement of "fundamental liberties" that you speak of.
2) Absolute morals and truths cannot exist or they would not be disputed, merely acted to, or against. The fact that, as humans, we can question morality itself proves that morality cannot be set in stone (figuratively, as the 10 commandments were no doubt set litterally in stone on more than one occassion).
3) Even if morality could be absolutely defined, it, in itself exists only through our subjective interpretations of it.
4) I see no reason why your problems with subjective morality are problems at all...
God forbid every argument not have a 'winner' and a looser'! or that we can just make up our own minds about what we believe to be right all willy-nilly!
5) You don't seem to understand the difference between morals and law.
The purpose of law is not to uphold universal morals.
It never has been.
The purpose of law is to maintain morals that attempt to encompass the majorities morals into a system that allows for the people of that society to co-exist.
By believing in subjective morality, I do not suggest that anyone be obliged to subscribe to my moral stance, quite the opposite, I encourage everyone to hold their own, but simply obide by the law if they want to co-exist freely within the society. Ie: (too take it to the extreme) If, in your subjuective morality, you can justify murder. Then, you are free to see murder as acceptable, and on a moral level, you would be completly fine in murdering someone. However, to co-exist in a society where the majority do not believe that murder is acceptable, you may not.
This would no doubt encourage the creation of nations based on belief structures, rather than ethnicity. The difference, is that you and your absolute morals tell us that our beliefs are wrong, and that even if we surrounded ourselves only with people who believe simmilarly (note: the majority of the western world now) and away from people who our morals could not allow us to co-exist with, we could still not practice homosexual sex. THAT is the stripping of your "fundamental liberties".
Theres all the religious reasons, the social ones, the legal ones and the basic point that homosexual unions are not worthy of marriage simply because they do not at all refelct the purpose which it serves.
Marriage is something not defined by society, and as such will remain true to itself, despite what liberals wish to call it. Marriage and families are natural institutions and have always been a staple aspect of human "tribes", it is only recognised by society.
To paraphrase:
There is the reason wherein it does not fit with one particular moral system, the reason wherein a minority of the western world would feel cheated, the reason that we might actually have to lift a finger and change some legislation, and the basic point that Marriage has existed for millions of years in some form or another, and already has a definition, which cannot be changed (oh wait... This is an argument AGAINST my other points, because the vast majority of celebrations that mirrored the christian "marriage" have allowed for the union of homosexual couples)
You just PROVED that homosexual matrimonial unions should be recognised by religion and legislation. =]
