| Gay Marriage Debate and defend your political beliefs as to whether or not marriage should be only defined as a union between a man and a woman. | 
04-27-2008, 09:43 PM
|
#31 (permalink)
| | Citizen
Country:  Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 71
Thanks: 8
Thanked 140 Times in 54 Posts
Level up: 18%, 90 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun  And you are mistaken if you think I am a traditionalist....
And the human brain, pretty much in all modern cultures and few past ones has considered homosexuality at best "different" and in many cases MUCH worse. Nothing has changed about humans. | That sounds a lot like traditionalist thinking to me. Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun Same gender attraction is what it is. And that "is" makes no sense in any realm of thinking other than disordered. | It makes sense to YOU as being in the realm of disordered. Many other people too. But popular consensus is not a valid measure of right and wrong. There are also many people who don't think of it as disordered, so I wouldn't make such an arbitrary statement about that. Especially since mental health professionals around the world seem to disagree with you. Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun I don't think we should fool ourselves into the "they are just like us" BS. They are no more like "us" than the other sexual deviant urges that DON'T have as strong a governmental lobby. | As I've said in other posts, sexual deviance is not grounds for saying that something is immoral or should not receive legal rights. Many people engage in sexual practices that are out of the norm, and that is not a basis for the legality of a couple's marriage.
Last edited by deekers79; 04-27-2008 at 09:47 PM.
| 
|  | | The Following User Says Thank You to deekers79 For This Useful Post: | | |
04-28-2008, 12:32 AM
|
#32 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country:  Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender: 
Posts: 8,371
Thanks: 101
Thanked 184 Times in 158 Posts
Points: 25,062, Level: 95 | Level up: 96%, 288 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by deekers79 "How about the Word of God given to man?"
Now we see it. If your sole basis for the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the fact that you think homosexual behavior is a sin, then we're into a whole new ballpark. Is this the case?
Nope, the sinfulness of homosexuality is only part of the reason.
And if you are a fundamentalist, who thinks that every word in the Bible as we read it today was God-inspired directly from God himself, then not only is there no arguing with you (because you claim the authority of God for yourself), but you really need to find a forum where the morality of homosexual behavior is debated, not the legality of gay marriage.
This forum debates both.
Gay marriage is a civil issue, not a religious or even a moral issue. Don't believe me? Consider this: It is perfectly legal for a lesbian to marry a gay man, and then live in separate houses with their own gay partners. This is LEGAL. Is it moral? You tell me. But regardless, it's legal.
But same sex marriage is NOT legal (apart from temporarily in MA).
Not all legal behaviour is moral, and not all immoral behaviour is illegal.
The legality of same-sex marriage is not about whether or not you think homosexual behavior is wrong. |
What makes you think that?
Why would you say incestuous marriage or polygamy are illegal? Does it have anything to do with morality?
The fact is there are thousands of morality based laws.
__________________
| |
| | |
04-28-2008, 12:36 AM
|
#33 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 8,371
Thanks: 101
Thanked 184 Times in 158 Posts
Points: 25,062, Level: 95 | Level up: 96%, 288 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by deekers79 "The purpose of human sexuality is procreation. Homosexual sex can never result in conception, ergo it is dysfunctional."
Here, you're playing semantics. If sexual behavior's function is to produce children, then it necessarily follows that any sexual behavior that cannot produce children is not functional. But the word dysfunction doesn't mean not functional. It means "a medical abnormality in the functioning of an organ or other part or system of the body."
That seems like a pretty accurate description of a homosexual.
Therefore using this word implies that there is something wrong with the person, not the behavior.
Or the person and hence their behaviour.
So let's replace that word with what you should have said: Homosexual sex can never result in conception, ergo it is not functional.
Loses some of it's bite, doesn't it? | Not really. It still validates the fact that homosexual sex is dysfunctional because it can never serve the purpose of human sexuality - procreation.
I think you just played the semantics game and lost!
__________________
| |
| | |
04-28-2008, 12:39 AM
|
#34 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 8,371
Thanks: 101
Thanked 184 Times in 158 Posts
Points: 25,062, Level: 95 | Level up: 96%, 288 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by deekers79 And if this is the basis for who we allow to marry, then are you saying we should ban every couple who cannot produce children from marrying? | I think you know there is a world of difference between a heterosexual couple who have some medical impairment preventing them from conceiving a baby, and a heterosexual couple who can never ever conceive.
__________________
| |
| | |
04-28-2008, 12:42 AM
|
#35 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 8,371
Thanks: 101
Thanked 184 Times in 158 Posts
Points: 25,062, Level: 95 | Level up: 96%, 288 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by deekers79
As I've said in other posts, sexual deviance is not grounds for saying that something is immoral or should not receive legal rights. Many people engage in sexual practices that are out of the norm, and that is not a basis for the legality of a couple's marriage.
| Yes - In many cases it is a basis for disqualification from marriage, eg. incestual couples, underage, already married etc.
There is no law against shacking up with several women but you can only marry one of them.
__________________
| |
| | |
04-28-2008, 05:57 AM
|
#36 (permalink)
| | SIMPLETON
Country: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In my skin
Gender:
Posts: 7,564
Thanks: 120
Thanked 173 Times in 148 Posts
Points: 20,609, Level: 90 | Level up: 91%, 241 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by deekers79 That sounds a lot like traditionalist thinking to me. | That sounds like you are wrong. Quote: |
It makes sense to YOU as being in the realm of disordered. Many other people too. But popular consensus is not a valid measure of right and wrong. There are also many people who don't think of it as disordered, so I wouldn't make such an arbitrary statement about that. Especially since mental health professionals around the world seem to disagree with you.
| "Mental health professionals around the world" seem to think both. But one thing that "mental health professionals" haven't done is explain "how" a person is born gay and "why" humans are gay. Until they do that, any one who deems homosexuality normal is just blowing smoke. "Science" depends on the "why's" and "how's". I'm still waiting for some of that science from you. Quote: |
As I've said in other posts, sexual deviance is not grounds for saying that something is immoral or should not receive legal rights. Many people engage in sexual practices that are out of the norm, and that is not a basis for the legality of a couple's marriage.
| They have he same rights as any other human being. Any human male can marry any human female with certain restrictions. Same gender attraction is not a right, it's a human aberration along the lines of other sexual dysfunction that we also don't have a "why" or "how" for.
__________________  | |
| | |
04-28-2008, 06:01 AM
|
#37 (permalink)
| | SIMPLETON
Country: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In my skin
Gender:
Posts: 7,564
Thanks: 120
Thanked 173 Times in 148 Posts
Points: 20,609, Level: 90 | Level up: 91%, 241 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by deekers79 And if this is the basis for who we allow to marry, then are you saying we should ban every couple who cannot produce children from marrying? | There are already rules in place. They cover anyone. One man and one woman. Marriage does not hinge on ability to procreate. But there is obviously a nod to it with the ban on incest.
One of the tritest things that I have ever seen by the pro-gay marriage lobby is that "we shouldn't allow sterile couples to marry". I guess next we are gonna try the "tax-paying citizen" schtick?
__________________ | |
| | |
04-28-2008, 06:06 AM
|
#38 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Haven, CT
Gender:
Posts: 6,565
Thanks: 377
Thanked 1,238 Times in 628 Posts
Points: 32,158, Level: 100 | Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher I think you know there is a world of difference between a heterosexual couple who have some medical impairment preventing them from conceiving a baby, and a heterosexual couple who can never ever conceive. | not medically 
either medical assistance is "moral" in assisting sterile couples to have children or it's not
...well, except to silly bigots, that is
__________________ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 
"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace | |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to tristanrobin For This Useful Post: | | |
04-28-2008, 06:38 AM
|
#39 (permalink)
| | SIMPLETON
Country: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In my skin
Gender:
Posts: 7,564
Thanks: 120
Thanked 173 Times in 148 Posts
Points: 20,609, Level: 90 | Level up: 91%, 241 Points needed | | Oh, so then you agree there's no biologic difference between the other sexual deviant urges and homosexuality then? There's not.
__________________ | |
| | |
04-28-2008, 09:16 AM
|
#40 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Haven, CT
Gender:
Posts: 6,565
Thanks: 377
Thanked 1,238 Times in 628 Posts
Points: 32,158, Level: 100 | Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed | | I agree there's not much difference between you and something that one scrapes off the soles of their shoes.
__________________ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | |
