Civil Homosexual Marriage

[DrTaffy]

Conceiving children?? How did we get here?

Reading your posts:

The state has every reason to promote traditional marriage and discourage homosexual relationships because the state depends on traditional marriage to maintain itself…future generations.

In any case, the only thing heterosexual couples can do that homosexuals cannot is one particular sex act and conceiving without outside help. Since they can and do conceive with outside help, neither is really your business nor that of the state.

I would love to hear Dr Daffy’s take on that subject…

Cute

Also I reject all “studies” by gay sympathizers that claim there is no harm to children raised by same sex couples.

So you are apparently wilfully blind to the facts.

I agree that marriage does not spread disease.

Great, so it is irrational to use the claim that same sex marriage will spread disease.

It is an uncontested fact however that the sexual activity that occurs in or out of a same sex relationship does spread disease.

How does monogamous sex within a marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, spread disease?

You are answering my question with questions…that’s a no, no.

Only if you cannot answer the questions. The inferences I am making are pretty clear.

 

[DrTaffy]

As to the insulting comments the one about “wiping drivel off your chin” probably qualifies as the most blatant example but your posts do not promote a thoughtful and rational dialogue.

And you inferring that I am homosexual and promiscuous do? You continue to make these allegations in this post. Feel free to report this thread to the moderators and we’ll see what they think.

If you don’t have a response to the multiple questions I’ve posted, then say so rather than engaging in personal attacks.

Right back at you. You could, for example, respond to the question you quoted above:

Do you claim to have evidence that denying same sex couples marriage will make their children better off?

 

[dmar198]

Read it, not impressed. Would you like to pick out one argument and present it in your own words?

Sure. How about this one, restated in my own words: Premise 1. Romans 1:26-28 is inspired by God and the truth.
Premise 2: Romans 1:26-28 teaches that homosexual behavior is bad.
Conclusion: Therefore, the teaching that homosexual behavior is bad is inspired by God and the truth. What do you think of that argument? Do you think the conclusion follows from the premises, or do you think one or both of the premises is wrong?

Here is the passage: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.

That sounds peachy as long as you assume that the religious beliefs the Government will be putting into law are the same as yours. What if they are Sharia law?

I would criticize the government for accepting that belief system without good reason.

Or Satanic law?

Same response.

Or maybe worse of all, the beliefs of a group who consider themselves to be the true Catholic faith, but disagree with you on gay marriage, female priests, abortion and who the True Pope is?

Same response. I think there is good reason for adopting belief in the Bible (and Catholicism), but not Sharia, Satanism, or unbiblical beliefs. Do you think that’s a reasonable and consistent way to approach this issue? Because I do.

Naturally, I reject (2), as do many people. Even, according to polls, a majority of Catholics.

Is that really news to you?

No, I just think that’s a good reason to have dialogs like this where the reasons for #2 can be defended. But I also think it’s important to frame the discussion this way because most of the time, at least in my experience, the discussion about “same sex marriage” is not based on whether or not homosexual relationships are good or bad. I think it should be.

 

[DrTaffy]

That is not the couple conceiving. That is just one person conceiving, with the help of outside donors. The couple as a couple does not conceive.

That is a semantic quibble. Whatever you call it, the couple produce children and raise them, and according to the professionals they raise them very well.

Why should the state care how they conceived?

What child wants to know her mommy or daddy wanted nothing to do with her or that components of conception were purchased via Craig’s List.

What child wants to know that they were an accident, not wanted? That happens in heterosexual couples, especially when certain religions restrict access to contraception or even sex education. Every child of a same sex couple knows that they were specifically wanted, that their parents made a deliberate effort to have them, and to suggest that those parents see them as nothing more than a “commodity” is unjustified, uncharitable and arguably hateful.

 

[LisaA]

And you inferring that I am homosexual and promiscuous do? You continue to make these allegations in this post. Feel free to report this thread to the moderators and we’ll see what they think.

Right back at you. You could, for example, respond to the question you quoted above:

I think you have confused me with someone else or attributed meanings that were not ther. I do not know if you are a homosexual or not, much less the activity level. I have maintained that neither I nor the state has any interest in your sex life. Thus the state has no reaso. To promote, support or call a variety of non procreative by design relationships marriage.

 

[DrTaffy]

Sure. How about this one, restated in my own words: Premise 1. Romans 1:26-28 is inspired by God and the truth.
Premise 2: Romans 1:26-28 teaches that homosexual behavior is bad.
Conclusion: Therefore, the teaching that homosexual behavior is bad is inspired by God and the truth. What do you think of that argument? Do you think the conclusion follows from the premises, or do you think one or both of the premises is wrong?

You are asking this of an atheist? :ehh:

Here is the passage: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

In other words, homosexuality (at least in this case) is directly caused by God, and was the punishment, not the sin.

Do you see how even accepting your text as valid does not objectively prove your case?

Also, obviously, I consider that text to be a fable. I may as well quote Harry Potter to prove a point.

I would criticize the government for accepting that belief system without good reason.

Yeah, reread that sentence carefully and have a good look in the mirror.

I think there is good reason for adopting belief in the Bible (and Catholicism), but not Sharia, Satanism, or unbiblical beliefs. Do you think that’s a reasonable and consistent way to approach this issue? Because I do.

No. Not unless you claim to have objective proof that your religion is the One True Religion. In which case, you should start a thread on that topic.

Otherwise you are forcing your subjective beliefs on others, in which case turn about is fair play.

 

[LisaA]

What child wants to know that they were an accident, not wanted? That happens in heterosexual couples, especially when certain religions restrict access to contraception or even sex education. Every child of a same sex couple knows that they were specifically wanted, that their parents made a deliberate effort to have them, and to suggest that those parents see them as nothing more than a “commodity” is unjustified, uncharitable and arguably hateful.

Uh really? Yes we wanted you so much that we advertised for a sperm donor on Craig’s List but we didn’t think you deserved to have a daddy…good grief, you MAKE my point. The child is a consumer good to be purchased like a puppy. Even worse are those sassy gay couples who mix their semen in a petri dish and either purchase an egg or rent a womb. Yeah Suzy, we wanted you so much we paid $10000 for the egg of a Harvard graduate student and we had you implanted in another woman for gestation. After birth we whisked you away from the rent a womb. No bonding with “mommy” no breast feeding, no mothering. Again, the child as a consumer good. This is how I used to breed show horses. It is not the way children should be conceived and raised. They are not foals or calves

 

[dmar198]

dmar198:

Premise 1. Romans 1:26-28 is inspired by God and the truth.
Premise 2: Romans 1:26-28 teaches that homosexual behavior is bad.
Conclusion: Therefore, the teaching that homosexual behavior is bad is inspired by God and the truth.
What do you think of that argument? Do you think the conclusion follows from the premises, or do you think one or both of the premises is wrong?

…homosexuality (at least in this [verse]) is directly caused by God, and was the punishment, not the sin.

Do you see how even accepting your text as valid does not objectively prove your case?

I take that as a denial of premise 2. And I disagree with your interpretation.

First, the verse says “God gave them up.” I don’t think that’s the same as “God directly caused.”

Second, even if your interpretation was correct, I still think the passage objectively proves Premise 2. Premise 2 says, “Romans 1:26-28 teaches that homosexual behavior is bad.” Even under your interpretation of the passage, it still seems to calls homosexual behavior dishonorable, unnatural, shameless, error, base, and improper. Thus, I think that this passage supports Premise 2 even under your interpretation. Does that make sense?

Also, obviously, I consider that text to be a fable. I may as well quote Harry Potter to prove a point.

I take that as a denial of premise 1. I would like to defend it, and I think it’s appropriate to do so here, since it is central to this particular argument against “homosexual marriage.” Are you willing to discuss Premise 1 in more detail?

Otherwise you are forcing your subjective beliefs on others, in which case turn about is fair play.

I’m still not sure what you mean by “force” in this context. Can you help me understand you by replying to the following argument?

(1) A law only forces a belief on others if it penalizes them for acting a certain way.
(2) A willingly passed law that declines to support homosexual relationships wouldn’t force anybody to act a certain way.
(3) Therefore, such a law wouldn’t force a belief on others.

What do you think of that argument?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is a semantic quibble. Whatever you call it, the couple produce children and raise them, and according to the professionals they raise them very well.

Why should the state care how they conceived?

You were the one who made a big deal about the distinction that comes with bearing a child as compared to getting one some other way (like adoption), at the end of post #61, and in your “yet they do” comment in post #71. So don’t complain to me when I call you on the fact that same-sex couples cannot bear a child without outside help.