How To Avoid Being Offensive While Maintaining Your Beliefs

Gay marriage. Abortion. Socialism. Capitalism. Gun rights. Immigration. Religion.

If reading those topics just now didn't cause you to relive memories of poorly worded discussions online, welcome to the Internet. You must be a first time user. People's opinions vary so widely on those issues that nobody agrees 100% on every one of them. 

I've spent countless hours on online forums dissecting these issues. In so doing, I've discovered a few tendencies that, if stopped, would greatly benefit the online community, as well as a few that we should all pick up. As I've applied these concepts I've gained friendships and avoided nastier discussions that could have happened.

The should stops:

1. The use of Straw Man arguments 

This means that you put up a weak claim that supports your opponent's position and knock it down as if with great intellectual prowess.

Example: Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is the main component of acid rain. Therefore we shouldn't ingest it. In fact, we should ban it.

DHMO is water. Yes, people die in it, the government has a system under your city for distributing it, wars are fought over it, etc. You still need it to live.

So, stop saying that Bernie supporters are all under 25 and just want free stuff. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but most of the people I know that have felt the Bern are actually  middle aged with degrees. Stop saying all atheists hate the world. Stop affirming that conservatives are all racist gun nuts. It's not true.

2. Twisting words

    

Many people confuse the concept of asking clarifying questions with word twisting and manipulative phrasing.

  

Example: "You're a Mormon, so you believe in a pedophile that hallucinated and wrote a false book. Am I right?"

As a Mormon, I know exactly where that conversation is going, and it isn't going to be about what I believe. It will be about what you want me to believe in order to justify your disdain. With. Out. Fail. This questioner is trying to win an argument, which is impossible. Nobody wins if it becomes an argument. 

  

Instead of shouting out preconceived notions, a person who truly wants to know what Mormons believe would ask a Mormon why they don't think Joseph Smith was a fraud, or why they claim to have the only true church on the planet.

   

This means holding back and being willing to listen. 

Be cautious with "so what you're trying to say." If you end up rephrasing what they've said in a manner that makes it support your argument as opposed to theirs you gone done goofed.

 3. Name calling  

Telling someone they're an idiot takes no intelligence or special ability. All it does it assert that you believe yourself to be smarter than the other person and that their opinion is inconsequential. This also applies to negatively labeling ideas as neanderthal, stupid, unintelligent, etc. 

    

When someone consistently hears harsh comments like that, it seeps into their subconscious mind. If you constantly call people, or their ideas, names it makes you an abusive individual. There is no other way to phrase that. 

If you struggle with this you can change by addressing the person's idea with facts, sources, and logic instead of simply trying to refute it by shouting it down.

4. False dichotomy

Either you support my gay marriage or you're a bad person. Either you like Reagan or you're a communist. Either you like Mexican people or you want the immigration laws to remain as they are. Either Trump scares you or you're a Nazi.

Look for the third option. Avoid extremes. Acknowledge the fact that if someone likes apples they can like oranges, too.  

Fix this by asking yourself if it's possible for both sides to be true. Work other variables into the equation. What other factors affect the situation?

The should starts:

1. Defend the opposition

  

What!? You heard me. Stand up for what others believe every once in a while, especially in the absence of opposing views. Call out people who are doing the "should stops" but who are on your side. Point out straw man arguments, regardless of whether or not they'll think you disagree with them. Ask your friend if they have the source for the meme they posted.

As I've done this it really throws people off. They'll start talking about how I'm a stupid liberal and reel back when I explain that I'm conservative like them.

It really helps the world if we all hold everyone equally responsible for being academically correct.

2. Compliments 

Say nice things about well phrased stances. Mention the pleasantries about those with whom you debate the tough subjects. Discuss what you like about those with whom you generally disagree. If someone attacks a person that believes the opposite of everything that you hold dear, repudiate the offense with kind words about your nemesis. 

This isn't Batman vs Joker. It's Batman vs Superman. It's Captain America vs Ironman. Both sides fight for what they think is right.

By doing this you will have a more positive world view and you will gain the respect of others. You'll also build a better rapport with them and they may ask you about why you've come to believe what you do. It opens the doors for friendships.

3. Ask clarifying questions

I've kind of already explained the inverse, but applying this concept is important. If you don't understand your opponent's viewpoint you don't understand the subject fully. Ask away. Try to convince yourself that what they're saying is true, because if it is, you're wrong. It's ok to admit that. You're a liar if you don't. If you believe your argument to be sound you should have no qualms about learning about theirs.

4. Mention what you don't mean to say

Since most others won't ask those clarifying questions, you should answer them in your original statement. This aids your effort to be tactful. 

Listen to the difference between these next two statements.

"I don't like the Catholic Church, their doctrines, or all the lucre their leaders have."

And

"I love Catholic people, and I respect their humanitarianism, but I don't like some of the doctrines they teach. I'm not saying that all Catholics are greedy, but I do, however, have some major differences with the amount of lucre they put into their leadership positions."

I literally said the same thing in both statements, but the second one reduces the ability of someone who likes the Catholic Church to say that I'm just a hateful person. They still can call me that all they want, but they can't pull that from my words without ignoring huge indicators that I am trying to show that I'm not. I've shown that I know about the positive aspects of the Catholic Church, and that I know very good Catholic people. I've also shown that I don't want to offend those people, but I've expressed that I am against some parts of their organization rather clearly.

Try it. See if these things change your ability to connect with other people who disagree with you. Don't take my word for it. It works. I've done it. Prove me wrong.

In Good We Trust

Separation of church and state. I get it. I think it's only fair for atheists, not to mention those of Buddhist, Muslim and Wiccan faiths, to feel that religion as part of official money among other things may be hypocritical. I mean, Christians claim that gay marriage is against their religion and should be banned. A belief in God is against the "religion" of atheists. (I put religion in quotations because it is a paradoxical "religion". You know what I'm talking about). Why should we allow God's name to be on our currency, the oath in a court of law, the oath of the President and in the Pledge of Allegiance?

My non religious response is one word. Symbolism.

Everything that we put on official paraphernalia represents an idea or value that we hold precious. We being the people of Earth. Every nation's flag has on it colors and shapes and images-- symbols of iconic historical figures, deities, and events. America is no different. The stars and stripes are for the original colonies and the current 50 states. The colors symbolize courage, sacrifice and purity. We fly it above the state flags to remind us that we all have one common center that holds us together despite geographical differences and cultural heritages.

That brings us to the symbol in question: God. What does he represent to those that believe in him? Mercy. Wisdom. Peace. Selflessness. Hope. According to our founding fathers he created all men equal and gave us rights. Though philosophers have debated the logistics of the idea over the centuries, basically, God personifies that which is good and virtuous.

What would the act of removing that symbol imply?

I understand what it's like to have ideals with which you disagree shoved down your throat-- I get that every time I turn on the television, get on Facebook or see a billboard advertising alcohol or an excessively sexualized culture. I am vehemently against those, but they are commonplace. There is one ideal that I'm positive that the majority of us support which is that everyone should be the best person they can be. God represents that. In fact, Christians believe that Jesus lived a perfect life and try to realize the concept in their own efforts. I don't see why anyone would object to having that as an emblem.

My last point had to do with the most iconic American symbol: the eagle. Native tribes have a religious connection with the eagle. Does that mean that we have allowed them to force their religion on us? No. We have taken the symbol and adapted according to the dictates of our own consciences. Why can't we do the same with the symbol of God? Well, we can, but why shouldn't we? Why wouldn't we?

For purposes of preserving our heritage, I suggest we back off of the attack on the whole "in God we trust" (I'm reluctant to say) issue. There is no need that I can see to attack it unless you have a vendetta against Christianity, which is discrimination, and in turn, hypocritical.

If anyone has an explanation that falls outside of what I've perceived for went we should remove the historically significant words from our money, please.  Do tell.

If It's All A Lie

My choir director at the LDS Institute of Religion in Orem, UT has said something that has caused me to introspectively reflect on my beliefs concerning the divine mission that God and Jesus Christ gave to Joseph Smith to be the prophet during the time that they were busy restoring their Gospel in its fulness in the early 19th century. In a month or so we, as a choir, will put on a large production depicting that process and the importance thereof in the history of mankind, and I want to be as sure as ever that God and Jesus really did visit him and lead him to an ancient record of some of the inhabitants of the Americas.

What what my choir director said was along the lines of: If it is not true, than many of the truths that we hold precious are indeed false.

I want to know for myself that the Book of Mormon is not a fictional history cleverly assembled to gain praise and followers; I wish to outline here why I believe that Joseph Smith was as much a prophet of God, and as just as fallible, as all of the prophets we read about in the Bible. 

My faith personally has rather little to do with the experience that Joseph claims to have had in the Sacred Grove. I have prayed for years for a specific witness and honestly have felt slightly dissatisfied with the minimal response that I've received concerning heavenly beings visiting the earth. I cannot wrap my mind around the reality of that yet,  and it's been a deep struggle for me to stand and say that "I know that heavenly messengers have visited the earth" as we are wont to say in the LDS Church.

Rather, my belief is based on the testimony,  or witness from the Holy Spirit of God, of principles taught in the Mormon Church that could not be true unless the assertions of Mr. Smith are veritable. 

If it is all a lie:

1. Marriage the family are not eternal, and they exist just "until death do you part".
2. God and Jesus might be kind of the same person, but not really. The whole Trinity concept is what was taught in the time closest to that of Jesus, but even so, it was first accepted as doctrine by the early Christian church 300 years or so after the death of the apostles. I would get very confused as to what I should accept as the nature of God.
3. I consequently have not made a valid covenant with God through baptism by one who has the proper authority of God (the priesthood as mentioned in the Bib and should Old and New Testaments) I would therefore need to continue to seek one who does Have that authority.
4. All baptisms for the dead are sacrilegious and ineffective. 
5. Temples are evil places where people make promises devised simply to inhibit the lifestyle of church members and the peace felt there is simply the secular serenity of being in a quiet place learning positive principles.
6. The warm feeling that I get reading the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as listening to the words of people that I now believe to be prophets and apostles of God, is a feeling that is nice, but does not confirm truth and I should cease to follow any direction offered to me by those moving desires that stir in my soul.
7. I am held accountable for the sins of my forefathers, all the way back to Adam, making me responsible for the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, injustice towards wisdom, lies, deceit, unbelief in God, etc. That is the concept of original sin in which I currently do not believe.

I hold the inverse of the above statements to be true because of the tangible and undeniable confirmation that I've received from the Lord in humble prayers throughout years of questioning that the principles preached in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints indeed are the very word of God. I cannot in good conscience refuse to accept the fact that God has made it known to my soul, heart and mind that the Book of Mormon is an inspired text that has taught me so much about Jesus that I love with all of my heart. I  cannot bare to consider that the wonders He performed for my Native American ancestors never happened, and that God is letting man wander in confusion and discord about the very person that should bring us all together.

Because I believe that, I affirm that Joseph Smith didn't lie to the world about his experience in this life. I have had too many witnesses to the contrary.

You will too if you sincerely study the subject from its source and not its enemies. The source is God, and therefore his enemies are, knowingly or not, fighting His purpose, which is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

#whyibelieve 

Values

Why does the word "value" have two different meanings? One means "worth" and the other means "moral belief". How are the two connected? Have you ever speed to think about that (before I asked you to)?

Let's begin with the idea behind "worth". Worth means that there is a cost that you would be willing to pay to keep or obtain an object or ideal. The idea of supply and demand is that a seller will only be successful if they place the price on the line of what the buyer feels the product is worth. Though you would make insane amounts of profit based on the proportion of building cost to revenue, only a child would drop $1,000,000 on a candy bar, so placing the price that high is stupid. If you place the price of a car at $1, the buyer will suspect that the car is worthless and won't go for it.

Value is affected by not only production costs, but by the acknowledged need for what is being sold. I sell animated Bible videos for a job, and in order for me to inspire people to buy they must understand the importance of having good media choices for their children at home. Once that is understood and taken to heart as a priority other things become less important and the sale is made. The value increased once the need became a reality to them.

Now, about the other definition of "value": moral belief. When you say that someone has values you assert that they hold true to certain principles. Common examples of phrases concerning this idea are family values, Christian and other religions' values as well as just the secular moral values.

So what happens when we fuse the two concepts into one?

A moral belief, if it truly has worth, merits sacrifice to uphold; otherwise is has no "value". There is a certain cost that one will pay to maintain personal integrity, and that confirms the declaration that he or she veritably has "values".

For many these days, religious values don't carry with them validity. These people seem to say that those who hold true to such beliefs are bigoted or old fashioned. I contest that these people have forgotten the literal meaning of the word "belief" because some throw it around lightly and without conviction. Those who flee pain by breaking their values and bending their own personal rules figuratively sell their  moral cars at $1. This causes a decrease in the marketable price of morals when many people lower lower their moral standards in exchange for money, power and popularity. That signifies that few are willing to stand up for what they see as right anymore; the world at large won't pay the price if money and power are cheaper emotionally and spiritually.

Don't sell your values for less than what they are worth. A universal value is that life is precious. You wouldn't kill yourself to eat garbage, so don't succumb to loud protests of others to achieve popularity in exchange for your soul.

Here is a test to try out for yourself: prioritize your beliefs. What is most important to you, and what is of lesser value? Go on and write it out and reassess you current actions to see if you are being honest with yourself. 

10 Questions For Personal Reflection Concerning Your Open-Mindedness

Often we look at others and claim that they are closed to any new thought that challenges what they believe or what they have learned from their trusted sources. Let's leave those others alone and take some time to help you ascertain where YOU yourself are on the scale.

1. Do you ever assume that people that believe differently than you have evil intentions because they are "rejecting the truth"?

Frequently people assert that one priority is more important than another, thinking thoughts like, "good people place this as top priority, and bad people don't." This is a way to close yourself off right from the start. For instance, both sides of the gun control argument want safety for, but they argue about which method is safer in the long run.

2. Are you honest-to-goodness willing to admit when someone else is right and you are wrong, or do you always have to "win" the argument?

No one "wins" an argument. Truth prevails, so fighting for your point of view excessively, especially when you know that you are wrong in some sense is without avail. It's okay to admit when you are mistaken. 

3. Do you ever simply contradict somebody's point by asserting the opposite without asking why they believe that way?

This is Class A verbal violence. Think of the Monty Python argument sketch and how pointless their conversation is. If someone says something you disagree with, show some evidence that they may not have had access to instead of saying 

4. Do you associate yourself only with people that believe just like you, or do you also coexist with those of differing faiths and political affiliations?

I sometimes end up being around people that are on a similar part of the spectrum as me because it means less contention. That suggests that I can probably do better at getting along with others, but my friends and I tend to like the same activities, so it doesn't mean that I have to change my close circle of friends. 

5. Do you ever take the time to just listen to what others believe, or do you assume that they hold certain truths inevitable?

Don't assume that you know what someone else is trying to say or what they hold near and dear to them. Ask. It's that simple.

6. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself  what you can do to better understand a religious or political standing that you know little about?

Do some research and develop your own knowledge of things as they really are.

7. Do you get defensive, or snarky when someone disagrees with you, or do you here them out?

If you start saying "but but but but" you aren't listening. If you flip around and make accusations you are struggling to own up to the truth of the matter. Also, sarcasm indicates a lack of willingness to understand.

8. Would you agree that it is wrong to degrade others based on their beliefs, even when those beliefs oppose what you stand for?

This one is hard because we often associate attacking those who support an idea with proving them wrong, but all it really does is portray hate on our part, even if we really don't hate them.

9. Do you accept others for who they are regardless of political difference/indifference, lifestyle or religious disagreement?

You don't have to constantly argue and bicker with your neighbor because you are Catholic and they are Atheist, or because they aren't Republican and they like the Patriots. You can let it slide.

10. Do you ever label those people as "stupid", "ignorant", "haters", "racist", "bigoted", "self righteous", etc.?

Name calling is the most common way that we learn to manipulate others into agreeing with us. Politicians love this one, and many activists use it, too. The labels we put on things and people can drastically affect the way we look at them. If you call someone a Nazi, you bring all of the emotion behind the Holocaust into play. If you call someone "racist" you affirm that they discriminate based on skin color or nationality alone. If you ever use terms like this, be sure to not only have evidence that they really are racist, you should have be able to sincerely and completely refute any evidence that they aren't racist. Remember that some irrefutable evidence is required in court in order to convict. Act likewise. Playing the devil's advocate against your claim will help with this one.

New Years Restitution: Positivity and Consistency

This last year I've published upwards of 20 articles and thoughts on difficult subjects, and really hit my friends' Facebook pages hard with a philosophical, but overall negative undertone behind it all. The other day I saw an old friend that is now married (it's been three years since we last met) and the first thing he said was "man, your posts on Facebook are obnoxious." I didn't ask him to clarify what he meant, whether it was that my posts themselves are bringing negativity into his news feed, or if it was just that I tend to post a lot and get comments, but I get the message: something has to change. Not for the sake of my blog, but for the sake of my friends.

So, granted that I am going to continue to blog this year, and hopefully have many more views than the 1,200 or so views I got this year (which was awesome), I am going to change my attitude and tone in this blog for the year. I want to compliment cases in which there has been good communication and analyze why it was good.

This change will present its challenges if I want to reach my goals; much of the online community feeds on nasty occurrences and criticism. I feel that most of my viewers have looked for that reason, and I have admittedly cooked up a smorgasbord of it with some vindication for dessert.

Now, every once in a while there may be a topic that I feel is good to report my thoughts on, and not ALL of my posts will fit this criteria, but the vast majority will go along these lines.

So, if anyone wishes to help me find material to write about, I would be much obliged. The idea is to find articles that discuss:

• Disagreements that ended well
• Tough topics discussed civilly
• Arguments avoided through good communication
• Encouraging positive reinforcement as opposed to punishment
• Personal reflection on self improvement via communication
• News articles that praise similar actions 
• You get the idea

Feel free to contact me via Facebook at Facebook.com/ListenFirstThenSpeak or via email at c.kent.lp@gmail.com.

Thank you for having read my blog, I hope that in some way it has had a positive effect on your life and a desire to communicate more effectively and openly.

Happy 2015!!

Gay Marriage According to Kant

Utah’s recent ban on gay marriage has been repealed by Federal Courts. The claim is made that marriage can be redefined based on the sexual orientation of the couple in order to not oppress those who are homosexual. It is obvious that the courts do not follow the ideology of Immanuel Kant in making its decisions because when one analyzes what a categorical imperative entails and screens the maxims used to support the legalization of gay marriage through the qualifications, one will discover that it cannot be legalized morally according to Kant.

Kant explains the beginnings of morality as well as how to achieve it. He purports that nothing in and of itself can be inherently good minus goodwill itself; all things can be used for good and evil with that one exception. He affirms that the purpose of reason is to help mankind achieve and discover that goodwill because all of our needs as humans have attached to them instincts to spur us on to meet them, while goodwill is not a need per say. Reason helps us to understand goodwill and to find happiness by making moral decisions that adhere to our goodwill. Kant defines the highest sense of morality as a categorical imperative which has three formulations.

The first formulation is that a moral act must be universally achievable without instigating any sort of contradiction. Killing oneself out of self pity, for example, defeats the purpose of self pity in the first place and therefore contradicts the very meaning of itself. Therefore suicide is not moral according to Kant. Also, Kant does not allow exceptions to a rule, therefore killing oneself for some noble cause still would not qualify for him as moral. He would assert that not only under his first formulation, but also under the second, which is that a moral act cannot use other people as means only, as opposed to being an end in and of his or herself. The suicidist uses his own self as a means, and thus disqualifies his action for fitting the categorical imperative. The third formulation is that anyone who declares an act moral must be willing to abide by the same, thus creating what he calls a kingdom of ends. Each and every member of the kingdom must follow the moral code as logic calls for. This also shows that suicide could not be considered moral, because anyone who thinks it moral must abide by the rule and kill himself in order to be moral. Some actions will qualify partially as a categorical imperative by satisfying one or two of the requirements, but in truth all three requirements must be met in order for Kant to assert that the action is moral. That is why he included all three formulations in his definition of categorical imperatives.

To discuss the morality of legalizing homosexual marriage, one must remember the definition of the word to be able to seek contradictions in any maxim given to support or refute the notion. Marriage has been defined in different ways throughout the course of its existence, but has been understood as the unit in which families are created and raised and entails having multiple parents/spouses present. Some cultures have declared it to being between only one man and one woman, whereas other cultures have deemed it just for one man to marry multiple women. The idea of polygamy, if the kingdom of ends wants to find itself achieved, must allow for a woman to marry multiple men as well. For polygamy to satisfy the first formulation it must exclude the option of someone marrying someone else that is already married, or a situation could arise in which a man married to three women married to three men individually who in turn have married three wives apiece etc. Marriage would therefore be a formality and nothing more, and basically it would cease to exist, especially if we were to make polygamy universal. On the other hand, marriage between one man and one woman would be moral seeing that everyone can do so and no contradictions present themselves.

Now there are people that intend to call a homosexual relationship “marriage”. Essentially, they want to redefine marriage to fit their own purposes, while affirming to allow others the same option, and therefore passing the formulation of the kingdom of ends. However, they have opened up a new can of worms here: if one person can redefine marriage to satisfy their fancy, that means that everyone must be able to in order to fulfill the first formulation. If this is true, a man who desire to marry his dog could argue that marriage should not be limited to humans because animals have rights and he longs for his companionship to be legally recognized. Since the formulations cannot be conditional, regardless of how many people agree or disagree with him he must be given that right to choose. Going back to our previous example of polygamy, a polygamist could also argue that she is bisexual and desires to have multiple partners in her marriage of both genders; all seven of them love each other and wish to engage in a four man and three woman marriage. Marriage would then mean that anyone can group living things together regardless of number and the state must recognize it as a marriage. This creates a question as to why we have marriage in the first place if the definition is subject to drastic change to fit contemporary views or personal opinion. However, the idea of civil union, which differs from marriage and is designed for those who wish to live together but whose relationship does not qualify for the term “marriage” allows for such people to have that union without inciting contradictions in logic.

Taking the last maxim one step further, if one can redefine marriage, the maxim must be universal to qualify as a categorical imperative. Therefore, if a person can redefine marriage, they must also allow for the redefinition of other words as well. This maxim would disseminate the very utility of language. Granted, connotations have changed over time, such as the word “gay”, which used to mean “happy” and now suggests male homosexuality. The word was used in a different context as a euphemism and now the euphemism has overridden the initial definition as understood by society. That is very different from changing the word “borrow” to include stealing by calling theft “borrowing without asking”. If marriage can be redefined as including the option of homosexuality, then theft could become simply borrowing because it is close enough that we can begin to use the words interchangeably. Therefore, the concepts of stealing and borrowing become one, as would marriage and civil union. Mixing definitions creates contradiction.

Moving on from the legal semantics of marriage, let us discuss the universal implications of homosexual marriage. Seeing as those following Kant’s theory aspire to live in a kingdom of ends, they must live in a manner that everyone else can adopt as well. Therefore, a person who chooses to only live in a homosexual lifestyle cannot be a member of said kingdom because if the whole human race were to do the same we would have no following generations unless we were to force certain individuals to have children, thus making them a means and not ends. Remember that allowances cannot be made based on circumstances according to Kant, even if those circumstances are emotional and physiological differences or sexual preference. However, if everyone were to submit to the idea that marriage is heterosexual regardless of sexual orientation, no contradictions are present. The human race would continue on as normal despite the discomfort of some as moral decisions are known to cause anyway.

Let us say that Kant were to concede one violation of his rule of not making exceptions based on circumstance, and that violation is to allow morals to change based on sexual preference.  Homosexuals claim the right to “marry” each other because they say that homosexuality is a natural inclination that they have. It is difficult for them to overcome it, and anyone who says that they must do so is an oppressor. Their claim written as a universal maxim would read: a person may do as he or she feels and be justified by morality. We have already discussed why homosexual unions cannot be universal, and this maxim follows suit. If human beings redefine morality to mean “how one feels”, serial killers can hold that they feel great pleasure in killing others. They can claim that it is difficult for them to overcome the urge, and therefore laws that prohibit murder are oppressive. As we can see, if we allow one group of people to decide that their struggle to accept one of Kant’s formulations for a categorical imperative and still call it moral, and we allow all others to do so, the purpose of the three formulations would fail. Therefore, there can be no exception made for homosexuals based on their emotions.

To conclude, in order to homosexual marriage to reach the status of a categorical imperative, the redefinition of marriage must be allowed in all instances based on how the person seeking to change the concept of marriage sees fit, and everyone must be able to act based on their emotions and physical desires without legal consequences. These maxims are self contradictory, and therefore homosexual marriage cannot exist morally as a categorical imperative.