Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

[Lee_M]

But God created each of us, right? If this is the case, why would he create homosexuals if he didn’t want them?

Why would God create people who murder? He gives us free will. If we choose to murder someone, it doesn’t make it right.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not sure you are serious?

How is it determined that natural law constitutes only a man and a woman?

Read all you would like about Natural Moral Law, it will be quiet and education

Questionable if it produces bonding? Where do you get that reasoning?

Again research the subject there is a serious difference

What about infertile couples? They don’t produce children on their own either and they are a minority, does that mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either?

I assume you know of endless debates which have occurred on that subject?

So because certain groups of people say that this is “right” and “moral” means that everyone should conform to it?

You need to read that Natural Moral Law stuff, it has nothing to do with “rights”. People will do it, regardless of what the government or any army says

Homosexuals are attracted to and fall in love with people of the same gender, so how do they not fit in with this natural law?

Natural Law, Laws of Nature, and Natural Moral Law all agree only a man and woman together mutually can produce children

Why wouldn’t they also want to get married and **have children **just like heterosexual couples?

And there you have it, gay couples cannot produce children, never, ever. If a gay couple has a child that child came from a male/female pair (always)

And gay couples accept that it brings responsibility. But is affords many rights that committed couples who love each other should have.

Again this is highly problematic, I personally raised children. The work and the drain is more than can be understood. Gay couples simple cannot go through that in a natural process. If you know any women who gave birth talk to her it changes her for life.

I have a question then. If you were gay, would you marry someone of the opposite gender? There is no love there. And even being straight, would you marry someone who you do not love?

I hope I would not participate, as that would be a lie to my partner

It is absurd that committed loving relationships between two consenting adults aren’t eligible for marriage.

Again the problem, change all the laws and the practices will not change. Make it illegal for a man to be with a woman, and watch children will be born! It is not because the government allows hetero marriage, it is because the hetero’s will marry anyway. They will marry without permission, they will marry against the law, they will marry even if punished

But gay couples still do deal with this, but without the protection of the government. So they get all the responsibility and none of the rights or protection.

This is really naive, children wear you out, take all your money, change every aspect of your life. People thus help married couple raise children -thus marriage laws. The false thought here is a gay couple should recieve tax benefits from signing a piece of paper. It is not the signing of the paper which made the marriage it is the creating children Again gay couples cannot create children

These are related to marriage. They are rights afforded to married couples by the government. If marriage is a religious institution, then it shouldn’t give legal benefits.

Marriage does not come from a Church nor a government. Marriage proceeds church, government, personal property, and all civil laws. This is the part causing confusion. If you get rid of church, government, personal property, and all civil laws, men and women will still marry

 

[AliciaCL]

What really kills me about this gay marriage business is that their best argument is a complete non sequiter which the public, by and large, has suckered for wholesale. I can attribute this to nothing other than poor education and lack of critical thinking skills. The arguement purports to state that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection for people under the law, mandates that gays be permitted to be marry. In simplest form, a man and a woman, are exactly the same as a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Exactly the same. To demonstrate, analogize it to numbers or colors. It’s the same, see? How can you not see it? Its soooo simple, soooo funamental. And the emperor has new clothes. The real problem with the nonthinking public, and the courts too these days, is that we want to have gay marriage. It seems like a nice thing to do for people who are nice people. It seems mean not to let them have it, so let’s find a mumbo jumbo way to make it sound like the law requires it.

 

[Lee_M]

There is a difference between killing a baby and eating it and being in a loving, committed gay relationship. You are comparing love to cannibalism. And I can still use the same argument I have been…two consenting adults. Not an adult and a child for marriage or otherwise.

No I’m using the argument that you cannot compare man to other animals.

 

[pete_29]

For me to accept homosexuality, I would have to accept a fallible God, in that He created a person of one sex, that had a mind of the other sex. Since I believe that God created everything, then everything must abide by His rules. God created man as man and woman as woman. In homosexuality, God created man with the mind and sexuality of woman and vice versa. Therefore, I cannot accept homosexuality.

 

[danih37]

Again research the subject there is a serious difference

What research? I would like to see it.

You need to read that Natural Moral Law stuff, it has nothing to do with “rights”. People will do it, regardless of what the government or any army says

And in the same way, gay couples will continue to fight for their equality and have their relationships.

And there you have it, gay couples cannot produce children, never, ever. If a gay couple has a child that child came from a male/female pair (always)

But they would still be raising that child and it would be theirs, regardless of who conceived it. That’s like saying adoptive parents aren’t legitimate parents.

Again this is highly problematic, I personally raised children. The work and the drain is more than can be understood. Gay couples simple cannot go through that in a natural process. If you know any women who gave birth talk to her it changes her for life.

Gay women give birth. I don’t know how this helps your argument. Yes, gay women need an outside man, but they are still giving birth to their child.

I hope I would not participate, as that would be a lie to my partner

Then why would you expect gay people to marry into straight relationships? People don’t choose who they love.

Again the problem, change all the laws and the practices will not change. Make it illegal for a man to be with a woman, and watch children will be born! It is not because the government allows hetero marriage, it is because the hetero’s will marry anyway. They will marry without permission, they will marry against the law, they will marry even if punished

And so will gay people. Regardless of law, people love who they love, so who are you to deny that happiness to someone?
Quote:

This is really naive, children wear you out, take all your money, change every aspect of your life. People thus help married couple raise children -thus marriage laws. The false thought here is a gay couple should recieve tax benefits from signing a piece of paper. It is not the signing of the paper which made the marriage it is the creating children Again gay couples cannot create children

So just because through gay couples having sex they can’t create babies, means that they shouldn’t get the same protections when they raise a family? Children wear out gays as much as they wear out heteros…so I don’t understand this argument.

Marriage does not come from a Church nor a government. Marriage proceeds church, government, personal property, and all civil laws. This is the part causing confusion. If you get rid of church, government, personal property, and all civil laws, men and women will still marry

And homosexuals will still want to be equal, regardless of laws. I don’t see how this is valid. Lesbians will still fall in love with women and gay men will still fall in love with men.

 

[danih37]

No I’m using the argument that you cannot compare man to other animals.

And how many species of animals eat their young?
Practically all species of animals exhibit homosexual relationships.

 

[danih37]

For me to accept homosexuality, I would have to accept a fallible God, in that He created a person of one sex, that had a mind of the other sex. Since I believe that God created everything, then everything must abide by His rules. God created man as man and woman as woman. In homosexuality, God created man with the mind and sexuality of woman and vice versa. Therefore, I cannot accept homosexuality.

It’s not having the mind of another sex. That would be transgendered.
And it’s not something that will just go away if you don’t believe in it. I can’t say that I don’t believe in oranges and they stop existing.

 

[danih37]

Why would God create people who murder? He gives us free will. If we choose to murder someone, it doesn’t make it right.

But isn’t God also all knowing? And therefore we don’t have free will because he knows what we are going to do.

 

[Lee_M]

And how many species of animals eat their young?
Practically all species of animals exhibit homosexual relationships.

Well, there are dogs, cats, voles, finches, spiders and many fish species. The list can go on, but I think you get the point.

 

[hasikelee]

And how many species of animals eat their young?
Practically all species of animals exhibit homosexual relationships.

Homosexual relationships?

I thought it had more to do with a biological instinct to reproduce being broken in some way.

For example, the homosexual geese who were blind.

Or the monkeys in the zoo who were emasculated when the females were put on hormonal birth control.

You’re not trying to make an argument that “practically all” species have homosexual relationships for real, are you?

Surely you didn’t think you could post something that sci-fi and not be asked to spell it out…

Are you just being a devil’s advocate on this thread?

 

[Lee_M]

But isn’t God also all knowing? And therefore we don’t have free will because he knows what we are going to do.

God does know what we are going to do, but we are the ones who choose to do it. There are several times I know what my kids will do in a situation, but I don’t make them do it. They still have the free will to make a choice.

 

[Father_of_9]

Certainly God is all-knowing. But He doesn’t impose His will on us just like a parent doesn’t impose his or her will on an adult child. We have free will to choose to do good or to do evil. Actions are evil when they harm one’s self or others. Homosexual behavior by its very (un)nature is harmful to those who participate in it. You may try to rationalize homosexual behavior all you want, but it doesn’t change natural law and the results of not living in accordance with it.

 

[danih37]

Homosexual relationships?

I thought it had more to do with a biological instinct to reproduce being broken in some way.

For example, the homosexual geese who were blind.

Or the monkeys in the zoo who were emasculated when the females were put on hormonal birth control.

You’re not trying to make an argument that “practically all” species have homosexual relationships for real, are you?

Surely you didn’t think you could post something that sci-fi and not be asked to spell it out…

Are you just being a devil’s advocate on this thread?

That’s not sci-fi, that is nature.
And maybe “practically all” was an exaggeration at this point since there is not enough research done…
But it has been documented in more than 1500 species from primates to worms.

And I am presenting my beliefs.

 

[danih37]

Certainly God is all-knowing. But He doesn’t impose His will on us just like a parent doesn’t impose his or her will on an adult child. We have free will to choose to do good or to do evil. Actions are evil when they harm one’s self or others. Homosexual behavior by its very (un)nature is harmful to those who participate in it. You may try to rationalize homosexual behavior all you want, but it doesn’t change natural law and the results of not living in accordance with it.

How can he be all knowing and us have free will? It doesn’t make sense no matter how much you try to explain it. It’s contradictory.

And it is natural in every form. The only argument anyone on here has claiming it be be unnatural is that it’s a minority and that they don’t procreate on their own. How is that unnatural. Maybe it’s God’s way of trying to keep population in check.

 

[hasikelee]

That’s not sci-fi, that is nature.

And maybe “practically all” was an exaggeration at this point since there is not enough research done…
But it has been documented in more than 1500 species from primates to worms.

And I am presenting my beliefs.

 

[danih37]

 

[Father_of_9]

OK, let’s try an example. Suppose you’re a parent and you have a young toddler. As he or she begins to take those first few steps, you know that there will be mishaps along the way. At first you give as much guidance and support as you can, but eventually you back away and let the child continue to learn through experience. Later comes running, bike riding, car driving, etc. You try to provide all of the needed information and guidance to your child along the way so that the mishaps and injuries are hopefully be kept to a minimum. But you know that some will occur. Now you could lock your child up in a room so that he or she will never experience the pain that comes with getting hurt walking, riding, driving, etc. But that’s not love and that’s not giving your child free will. Ultimately your child must make his or her own decisions, hopefully in light of the wisdom that you have shared.

 

[hasikelee]

hasikelee;4569183:

I am presenting beliefs and facts.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but you guys are also presenting beliefs, so calling me on that is unhelpful to you.



The smiley is b/c I must be nearsighted. I cannot find any facts.

Do you have citations to the scientific papers? Journals?

Besides, once you establish your cites, you’ve still got a lotta work on the conclusions.

For example, where you see a loving homosexual relationship, I see two blind, old geese going at it, quite obliviously.

It might not be biologically beneficial to be the ugly duckling after all!

 

[danih37]

danih37;4569202:

The smiley is b/c I must be nearsighted. I cannot find any facts.

Do you have citations to the scientific papers? Journals?

Besides, once you establish your cites, you’ve still got a lotta work on the conclusions.

For example, where you see a loving homosexual relationship, I see two blind, old geese going at it, quite obliviously.

It might not be biologically beneficial to be the ugly duckling after all!

Try this out.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=031225377X/scottbidstrupshoA/

A whole book. Written by Bruce Bagemihl PhD