No, you are not being honest. Let's say the norm in a country is for people to not eat fish. Why? No particular reason, there just is not a fish-eating culture and so most people are appalled to the taste and smell of fish. Are those people wrong? Are they right? Neither, it's just the way things are.

Right and wrong are only reserved for 100% facts. The earth is without a doubt round, what people think does not matter. Eating or not eating food is not a natural law, as such it cannot be right or wrong. In the same sense what people consider a marriage cannot be right or wrong either. The only thing you can argue is 100% technical facts, like "this type of food is poisonous", or "same-sex couples cannot reproduce". Don't let your emotions influence your judgment.

You guys are onto same sex marriage now? Seriously?
This really should be renamed
"The Knee-jerk reactionary, old, right-wing curmudgeon circle jerk thread (and those who like to troll it)"
Hmm... maybe a bit wordy though - I need a good editor sometimes...

That's Sci-Fi, Sci-Fi and Sci-Fi if you ask me... :D

Why do you say I am not being honest? That's a good example of a norm being neutral.

What if the norm of the country is to rape and murder people who visit their country? Is that not an example of something that is both the norm and wrong?
Hahahahaha

Such a country would be unsustainable, so it's not necessary to judge whether it is wrong or right. Time always proves what is really right and what is wrong. So if someone wants to change something that has been working for millennia I call BS on it.

Sarc on.
Who are you calling knee-jerk? I put a lot of effort into my replies... :(
Sarc/

Interesting that it seems you consider all those words to be in some way derogatory...

PS you were commenting the other day how you'd missed the start of the radicalism thread. Check on it for a new opportunity, I'd be curious on your thoughts on an article I posted from an ex-radical.

So if time proves what is really right or wrong, you must be accepting that there is a period, before time has worked its magic, that the norm is wrong, but still is the norm? So a norm isn't always just a norm, it can also be right or wrong (or as you have shown neutral), right?

Putting to one side the whole "marriage has been around for millennia" thing (not in most countries, it hasn't - certainly not in mine), how do you think "time proves what is really right and what is wrong"? It just happens? You don't think people get involved at all?

How do you think time ended slavery? That had actually been around for millennia. That was the norm. Do you think people wanted to change that thing that had been working for millennia? Would you have called BS on them?

What if, in relation to gay marriage, we are at that time that you have identified, where it is currently the norm not to permit it, but where time is about to prove "what is really right and what is wrong"?

I'll be brief - relative to my usual ;)

My points were:
Para 1: Do not legislate marriage. Deregulate it.
Para 2: Debate ethics of marriage with someone else. Please do it openly and in good faith.
Para 3: Some counterarguments. Attempt to refocus on coercion. Social conservatism is not wrong a priori.

That last one was the one I specifically asked about. The way I phrased it was "Do note that discomfort with change does not prove anyone wrong..." We had a wonderful example of someone using the word reactionary in derogatory if humorous fashion already, kind of exemplifying why I felt useful to make such a point explicitly. I don't need to explain how conservatism and 'reactionarism' are related. Yes?

Now that is (hopefully) clearer for you. You asked why I "accuse" you of distractions.
Basically the mixture of your gotcha attempts with my impression that your arguments are often non sequiturs makes me suspect you of bad faith argumentation. Only on occasion.

So no. It's not because you disagree, it's how you disagree. I love that you disagree, makes for interesting conversations, and I want to understand more about why instead of circling around, and around... aaaannnndddd around. ;)

Cool, very brief and didn't respond to any of my questions. Better than really long and not responding to any of my points which seems to be your usual work. So you'd prefer not to answer any of these questions??:

1. Do you really think Buddhist "scripture" defines marriage as a union between man and woman?
2. Do you really think its artificial to distinguish marriage, sex and reproduction? You don't think they can all happen independently of each other?
3. Do you agree it is also a valid interpretation to say the Bible supports slavery and is against interracial marriage?
4. Do you think people should be permitted to use genuinely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve at an interracial wedding?
5. Is it ok for someone to say for someone to say, I don't want to serve gays or blacks or whites or men because I hate them and you think they shouldn't be 'coerced' into doing so?
6. I agree that we are talking about changing the definition of marriage (in Australia's case, again). Why does that matter? If the norm is wrong, why not fix it? Why does the fact that we have been doing it wrong for hundreds of years matter in the case?

p.s. I didn't ask you why you accused me of distractions, I asked why you said "you are refusing to grant legitimacy to the other side on that debate" and then asked if you were doing the same with me as you disagreed with what I said about coercion being ok in certain circumstances.

How on earth is Christianity and Buddhism Sci-Fi? Last I checked the Death Star didn't show up in the bible and the buddha didn't battle against.cyborg assassins :p

Well, there's the Arc of the Covenant and all of its Nazi face melting powers
Plus sci-fi authors starting their own religions is totally a thing, don't forget!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

Scientology is a religion? I thought Candy Crush clones were on phones; not off any type of electronic media.

you'll need to know spanish, but... there's . I like him better than [url=http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3901127/Nobody+cares/219#219]that other dude.

i'd say religious texts are far closer to fantasy (tale of a lone white mage, using non-violent ways (OT was violent, J.C. did not like violence) to help the people in need but the evil king hunts him down and eventually captures and kills him)