From: Westbrick | #157
This is what I'm talking about: it just seems like you're pretending that your opinion isn't an opinion, but some self-sufficient moral truth. Let me rephrase your objection from the perspective of an angry Christian:
"The compromise that means secularists get to define marriage exclusively and everyone else who happens to wish to protect the sanctity of marriage gets to go suck a dick?"
And my proposal, by the way, allows individual churches to decide.
Except that it doesn't let anyone define marriage exclusively to allow both secular and religious marriages to exist! Secular marriage existing doesn't prevent Christians from having their own view on marriage, only from having non-Christians forced to obey Christianity.
It's actually extremely easy to argue against it, especially from a religious perspective. Why should moral falsehoods be tolerated, particularly if they debase a central social institution?
Slight problem - you have to actually prove that it's a moral falsehood.
Yeah. That is why the neutral position should be taken, because otherwise you're asking the government to officially declare which religious position is right.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.