Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[josh987654321]

I assure you, I am not Richard Dawkins.

Thank goodness.

I’m currently reading his book and some of his ideologies are not simply wrong, because that would be okay, but they are quite dangerous, I would be very worried if someone takes all of his message to heart, I’m just glad he doesn’t practice or is not in a position to practice all of what he preaches. If someone like him became prime minister in my country, id be packin my bags.

EmperorNapoleon:

I just don’t think the question is pertinent. No one forces children to part with their biological parents unless the child’s welfare is at risk.

I agree, because biological ties do matter.

EmperorNapoleon:

The vast majority of the time, at least one of the biological parents doesn’t want to be involved in their children’s lives. We cannot sit around contemplating what biological parents should do. They make the choices they make and the only consideration is what is in the best interest of the child.

I forgot to add, I was reffering to homosexual couples using a third party or other scientific methods of fertilization, in order to bring a half biological child into their relationship, because in that instance, I believe it is wrong, however it’s already legal anyway I think, so it doesn’t hold much relevance to the same sex marriage argument, I just brought it up because I didn’t want anyone to have the philosophy that biological ties don’t matter, because I believe they do, greatly do.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[LisaA]

I just don’t think the question is pertinent. No one forces children to part with their biological parents unless the child’s welfare is at risk. The vast majority of the time, at least one of the biological parents doesn’t want to be involved in their children’s lives. We cannot sit around contemplating what biological parents should do. They make the choices they make and the only consideration is what is in the best interest of the child.

This is so specious as well as incorrect. So you claim the in the “vast majority” of cases, children born within a male/female marriage have one parent who doesn’t want to be involved? Are you kidding or just think we’re so stupid we won’t notice the latest in a net full of red herrings?

Has any study disputed that the optimal place for a child to be raised is in a home with a mommy and a daddy? And don’t discount biological ties. Not only do you see parents moving heaven and earth to get their children back even if taken for a good reason, but adopted children often search for their biological parents. The old saying blood is thicker than water and it’s with good reason. At this point people are spending hundreds of dollars on sites to trace their family history. This is part of being human. Aside from that do you truly think that a child conceived in a marriage, where the pregnancy brought the parents closer together, where the child is handed to his mother or father within minutes of birth doesn’t create substantial bonding? I’m certainly not discounting adoptive parents at all but you dismiss the idea that there IS something special about two parents creating a new life and then nurturing that life from his or her first breaths.

If you truly have the best interests of a child at heart, then you’d want to see societal support for a stable two parent home with both a mommy and a daddy. You’d have to be blind not to see the devasting effects of not having a father in the home. While there are fewer single fathers, again the child is missing that opposite sex parent in either case. It’s a social experiment with devastating impact. I’d think if you were sincere about the best interest of the child, you’d accept that the traditional marriage is optimal. It doesn’t mean that everything else is awful but that if society is going to support ANYTHING, it should be the two parent family.

What I see with the gay marriage movement is just a lot of individual selfishness, self absorption and professional victimhood. You want it 'cause you want it 'cause those other people got it first…

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I don’t have a problem with gestational surrogacy and I don’t view traditional surrogacy as any better or worse than adoption.

Other than you’re breeding children like I bred livestock. Using the same techniques too! We used AI, frozen embryos, surrogate mothers but we were breeding animals to sell, not human beings.

You think making children a commodity that can be purchased is a good thing?

I never fail to see the incredible beauty in my Catholic faith where all decisions are based on maintaining the inherent dignity of the human being. It’s not in using a human for sexual satisfaction or to get benefits or to get the latest accessory…a child. Oh and when you breed the kid, if it’s not what you wanted, have it aborted. We’ve already seen this happen. I certainly don’t blame gays for much of what’s gone wrong in society but the theory that somehow gay marriage isn’t going to further debase and demean marriage is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

Good points LisaA.

 

[HandyAndy]

At no other time is our heavenly family, so beautifully reflected here on earth…then through the gift of creation in the birth of a child. A father, mother and child.

Anything else, is simply a cheap imitation.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

This is so specious as well as incorrect. So you claim the in the “vast majority” of cases, children born within a male/female marriage have one parent who doesn’t want to be involved? Are you kidding or just think we’re so stupid we won’t notice the latest in a net full of red herrings?

You are taking the discussion out of context. We were talking about adoption and AI.

Has any study disputed that the optimal place for a child to be raised is in a home with a mommy and a daddy?

Absolutely, which is why every professional body of pediatrics, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and social work has come out in support of same-sex parenting. There is no evidence that children are better off in an opposite-sex household than a same-sex household.

If you truly have the best interests of a child at heart, then you’d want to see societal support for a stable two parent home with both a mommy and a daddy. You’d have to be blind not to see the devasting effects of not having a father in the home. While there are fewer single fathers, again the child is missing that opposite sex parent in either case. It’s a social experiment with devastating impact. I’d think if you were sincere about the best interest of the child, you’d accept that the traditional marriage is optimal. It doesn’t mean that everything else is awful but that if society is going to support ANYTHING, it should be the two parent family.

I’m not saying that a two parent family isn’t optimal; I’m pointing out that there is no evidence that the gender of the parents matters.

Other than you’re breeding children like I bred livestock. Using the same techniques too! We used AI, frozen embryos, surrogate mothers but we were breeding animals to sell, not human beings. You think making children a commodity that can be purchased is a good thing?

Well, unfortunately Lisa, not everyone is capable of bearing children on their own and I don’t begrudge them their desire to have a child. You’re free to walk up to any expectant mother and equate their last best hope of having a child with breeding livestock, but I would advise against it. And BTW - whats the difference between paying a surrogate mother and paying adoption “fees?” Catholic Charities charges up to $25,000 to adopt a child and if you don’t have the bucks you don’t get the kid. But, somehow, neither they or any other adoption agency are accused of making children a purchasable commodity. Interesting.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m not saying that a two parent family isn’t optimal; I’m pointing out that there is no evidence that the gender of the parents matters.

Why a two parent? why not three or four? isn’t it the philosophy, many hands make light work?

I would say the healthy biological mother and father raising the child they concieved together is the optimal.

Well, unfortunately Lisa, not everyone is capable of bearing children on their own and I don’t begrudge them their desire to have a child. You’re free to walk up to any expectant mother and equate their last best hope of having a child with breeding livestock, but I would advise against it.

Fair enough, I don’t know enough about this issue to comment too much on it, but I would like to ask, what child wants to trace his/her family tree back to test tubes and surrogate mothers?

And BTW - whats the difference between paying a surrogate mother and paying adoption “fees?” Catholic Charities charges up to $25,000 to adopt a child and if you don’t have the bucks you don’t get the kid. But, somehow, neither they or any other adoption agency are accused of making children a purchasable commodity. Interesting.

The difference I believe is in the creation of the child, one is being payed to concieve the child, the other has already been concieved. Adoption is sometimes necessary, but not ideal and I believe it would be wrong for someone to concieve with the intention to give their child up for adoption.

Sometimes these “less than ideal circumstances” may arise and are necessary, but I worry when people say things like “I don’t see any difference between them” I worry when “less than Ideal” becomes the norm and treated as no different to the “ideal.”

There are many who fail to live up to the ideal family (of a biological mother and father raising their child together) in todays society, but instead of trying to reach it, what worrys me is when people try to lower the bar, or claim that less than ideal circumstances are just as good, that kind of reasoning I believe is dangerous.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Why a two parent? why not three or four?

States have made successful arguments against it on the grounds that there is a prevalence of various forms of child abuse in such households.

isn’t it the philosophy, many hands make light work?

I haven’t heard that one before.

Fair enough, I don’t know enough about this issue to comment too much on it, but I would like to ask, what child wants to trace his/her family tree back to test tubes and surrogate mothers?

Gestational surrogacy is one in which the child has no genetic link to the mother. The embryo is just implanted in the surrogate mother. There are different categories of gestational surrogacy, but this kind of surrogacy is typically done because the biological mother is unable to carry a baby to term for health reasons.

The difference I believe is in the creation of the child, one is being payed to concieve the child, the other has already been concieved. Adoption is sometimes necessary, but not ideal and I believe it would be wrong for someone to concieve with the intention to give their child up for adoption.

I think we can agree on that to an extent. On the one hand, I don’t believe couples should have children if they don’t want them. On the other, at least they have the good sense to put them up for adoption.

Sometimes these “less than ideal circumstances” may arise and are necessary, but I worry when people say things like “I don’t see any difference between them” I worry when “less than Ideal” becomes the norm and treated as no different to the “ideal.” There are many who fail to live up to the ideal family (of a biological mother and father raising their child together) in todays society, but instead of trying to reach it, what worrys me is when people try to lower the bar, or claim that less than ideal circumstances are just as good, that kind of reasoning I believe is dangerous.

I respect the fact that you are basing those beliefs on what you think is best for children and it is apparent to me that it is a genuine sentiment. Not something I come across often in these discussions. I think we just disagree on what “ideal” means.

 

[josh987654321]

States have made successful arguments against it on the grounds that there is a prevalence of various forms of child abuse in such households.

Okay, if you’re interested, a good little experiment, just run back through some of the pages in this thread and see how well the pro gay marriage arguments do when it comes to polygamy.

I haven’t heard that one before.

Glad you like it.

Gestational surrogacy is one in which the child has no genetic link to the mother. The embryo is just implanted in the surrogate mother. There are different categories of gestational surrogacy, but this kind of surrogacy is typically done because the biological mother is unable to carry a baby to term for health reasons.

Thank you for that information on it. But as I was saying earlier, I don’t believe it’s right to intentionaly concieve a child with the intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father, sometimes it happens, but do to it intentionaly I believe is wrong.

I think we can agree on that to an extent. On the one hand, I don’t believe couples should have children if they don’t want them. On the other, at least they have the good sense to put them up for adoption.

I agree.

I respect the fact that you are basing those beliefs on what you think is best for children and it is apparent to me that it is a genuine sentiment. Not something I come across often in these discussions. I think we just disagree on what “ideal” means.

Thank you EmperorNapoleon, I have enjoyed this discussion with you.

I’m not sure that we do disagree too much on what “ideal” means when it comes to family.

I would just like to rephrase a bit of what LisaA said, often times you will see parents move heaven and earth to get their child back even if taken for a good reason.

Adopted children often times will go seeking their biological parents sometime throughout their life, they all have a sense of longing to find their biological parents, even if some are late or never act on it, it seems to be an innate longing.

Also a child concieved in a marriage, where the pregnancy brought the parents closer together, where the child is handed to his mother or father within minutes of birth creates substantial bonding, I’m certainly not discounting adoptive parents but I wouldn’t dismiss that unique relationship shared when two parents create new life and then nurture that life from his or her first breaths and I believe this is something to be encouraged, as the ideal, not saying it can’t go wrong depending on the parents, but rather, that it is the ideal when all the variables align for the good of the child.

I believe when people do it differently, than it is less than ideal, and sometimes these things happen, but as I said, I worry when people wish to lower the bar and say that less than ideal is now ideal, because I believe that we all err, we all make mistakes, but I believe we shouldn’t try to justify them by saying that these less than ideal situations are the same, that they are no different “shoot for the moon, even if you miss you’ll land amongst the stars.”

Anyway, I hope I was able to articulate this well

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

You keep throwing out Red Herrings and ignoring biology.

I do not ignore biology. I merely give biology less significance that human free will.

Both use some of the same body parts but same sex activity is completely lacking in the capacity to create life.

And biology tells you that some opposite-sex activity is also completely lacking in the capacity to create life. Are you proposing to make oral sex illegal for everyone? I’m sure the NSA could install a secret webcam in every American bedroom.

That a particular act would not produce a child doesn’t change the inherent capacity and potential that absolutely does not exist in same sex relationships, ever.

I would be interested to see a child born as a result of oral sex. Again you are ignoring biology with respect to certain opposite-sex couples who absolutely do not have the capacity to produce a child.

Were you aware of the immune response to sperm when it enters areas other than intended by nature? Imagine of course you know about STDs and AIDS right?

You are aware that the great majority of AIDS carriers are heterosexual, aren’t you? Hint, I’m not just talking about America.

Society generally supports those actions that enhance society’s future and healthy behaviors.

Indeed, future overpopulation is a big problem. It is good to see that the homosexual community is doing its bit to avoid this potential future problem.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

I do not ignore biology. I merely give biology less significance than human free will.

Okay.

I know this post isn’t directed at me, but I hope you don’t mind if I answer.

And biology tells you that some opposite-sex activity is also completely lacking in the capacity to create life. Are you proposing to make oral sex illegal for everyone? I’m sure the NSA could install a secret webcam in every American bedroom.

I would not criminalize sodomy, nor advocate criminalizing it, I believe it’s a consensual act and thus don’t see any need for it to be criminalized, I also see how in the west, with the push for same sex marriage, other countries are hitting back hard in the opposite extreme, with the persecution of homosexuals and I believe to me that’s a great problem, something which I want to assure others reading which is completely against Christianity, especially in places like Uganda that I have heard of.

There was a fantastic quote I got from a CAF member named Nacho -

“Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian, even though they profess with their lips the teaching of Christ.” Justin Marytr

And when the adulterer was brought in to be stonned, Christ said *“let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” *than Christ himself, who was sinless, said “I wont accuse you either, but go and sin no more.”

I would be interested to see a child born as a result of oral sex. Again you are ignoring biology with respect to certain opposite-sex couples who absolutely do not have the capacity to produce a child.

Rossum, I am baffled that people cannot see that men and women are designed for one another. I don’t know how people could be so blind/naive when it comes to this reality. sure you might see nothing wrong with homosexuality, but many people do and I believe it’s wrong for people to try and equate it with the unique union of a man and a woman. Like I said, the fact that men and women are designed for one another has been at the logical basis of marriage all throughout history, even polygamy makes more sense, hence why it’s all throughout the old testament.

Like I said, if you remove this reality from the logical basis of marriage, you will change ‘marriage’ beyond any recognition at all, the whole concept of ‘marriage’ will really become completely senseless.

You are aware that the great majority of AIDS carriers are heterosexual, aren’t you? Hint, I’m not just talking about America.

I don’t know much about that so I wont comment, but I believe you will just be going around in circles talking about AIDS.

Indeed, future overpopulation is a big problem. It is good to see that the homosexual community is doing its bit to avoid this potential future problem.

rossum

I believe thats irrelevant to the argument for same sex marriage, it’s not like we are trying to criminalize a homosexual union, we simply wish that the unique relationship of a man and a woman stay recognised as exactly that … unique, because it is.

Recognising the healthy union of a biological mother and father where a child concieved in a marriage, in which the pregnancy brings the parents closer together, where the child is handed to his mother or father within minutes of birth creating a substantial bonding, not discounting adoptive parents but not dismissing that unique relationship shared when two parents create new life and then nurture that life from his or her first breaths, where both parents are part of that child, not superficially, but fully.

Like I said before, Sometimes there are “less than ideal circumstances” that may arise and may be necessary, but I worry when people say things like “I don’t see any difference between them” I worry when “less than Ideal” becomes the norm and treated as no different to the “ideal.”

There are many who fail to live up to the ideal family (of a healthy biological mother and father raising their own biological child together) in todays society, but instead of trying to reach it, what worrys me is when people try to lower the bar, or claim that less than ideal circumstances are just as good, that kind of reasoning I believe is dangerous.

I don’t know if this will help, but I found this post on an old thread I was in, that I thought was really good in rehard to same sex marriage, if not, than disregard it, but I thought it was good.

Brendan:

The primary purpose of an automobile was to provide transportation, does the existence of a unstartable automobile negate the primary purpose of an automobile.

Likewise, the unstartable automobile is still an automobile.

And if someone came along and stated that a safe is an automobile because it is made of metal, it still would not be an automobile. It would be a safe. And the fact that there exists non moveable cars does not make a safe into a car.

And the existence of non fertile couples does not mean that either the purpose of marriage has changed, nor does it make a (non fertile) homosexual couple into a married couple.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

And when the adulterer was brought in to be stonned, Christ said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Yeah, but the Bible leaves out the next line, where Jesus said, “Mother! Put down that rock! I said he, not she.”

Rossum, I am baffled that people cannot see that men and women are designed for one another.

You use the word “designed”. I do not accept the hypothesis of Intelligent Design; both men and women are evolved. There is research, Camperio-Ciani (2004) Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity, showing that there are genetic factors which cause women to have more children, while men with those same factors have a tendency to be homosexual. In overall terms, those genes survive because the increase in the number of babies born to the women outweighs the decrease in the number fathered by the men. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, and is observed in species other than humans.

Your argument assumes design as a premise, and I reject the design premise because there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Like I said, if you remove this reality from the logical basis of marriage, you will change ‘marriage’ beyond any recognition at all, the whole concept of ‘marriage’ will really become completely senseless.

We are not discussing the “whole concept of marriage”, but the specific concept of legal civil marriage. Other forms of marriage remain unaffected. A Moslem husband may still marry up to four wives at his local Mosque.

rossum

 

[Aramis]

I wouldn’t call a history book an opinion?

Every historical work is either a source book or an opinion, or both. It’s a standard term within the discipline. A source book adds nothing - it merely represents an older collection of documents. A historical opinion is anything which is not a sourcebook nor a literature review. And a literature review is another form of opinion.

I hold a BA in History.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I do not ignore biology. I merely give biology less significance that human free will.

And biology tells you that some opposite-sex activity is also completely lacking in the capacity to create life. Are you proposing to make oral sex illegal for everyone? I’m sure the NSA could install a secret webcam in every American bedroom.

I would be interested to see a child born as a result of oral sex. Again you are ignoring biology with respect to certain opposite-sex couples who absolutely do not have the capacity to produce a child.

You are aware that the great majority of AIDS carriers are heterosexual, aren’t you? Hint, I’m not just talking about America.

Indeed, future overpopulation is a big problem. It is good to see that the homosexual community is doing its bit to avoid this potential future problem.

rossum

As always, you throw in canned arguments and quips to dilute the topic or change the focus. Your favorite is talking about the exception, like the sterility of some women and men to justify the sterility of all homosexual sex.

The African AIDS/HIV experience is largely heterosexual while said disease in the U.S. and Western countries mostly afflicts the homosexual population. That does not mean, of course that there are no gay men in Africa or American heterosexuals who do not have or get the disease.

Certainly by sheer volume worldwide, there are more heterosexuals carrying the disease because you bring in the African AIDS health crisis. AIDS reached epidemic levels in Africa and the West very differently. The common denominators are promiscuity, anal sex, and bisexual men infecting their wives or girlfriends, causing spread in the latter to women.

Comparison of the AIDS scenario in Africa to that in the West has to consider factors like combination of higher rates of untreated STDs, limited prevention campaigns, and lack of access to health care in general in that part of the world that is not as developed as in the West. By the way, there is research that suggests that AIDS in Africa is not the same, the disease being different as to infections, transmission patterns, and viral subtypes.

I think informed people realize that in the U.S., it is undeniable that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800), according to the latest CDC report. Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States.

Staggering. But the propaganda continues that AIDS is not a homosexual disease.

You showcase a bunch of knowledge and you stitch them up alright to confuse. Perhaps you score points, to those who can’t put facts together.

No cigar.

 

[rossum]

Staggering. But the propaganda continues that AIDS is not a homosexual disease.

It isn’t. AIDS is a disease, which is disproportionately low in homosexual females. Does that make AIDS a “heterosexual disease”. It is you who is making an error by ignoring lesbians.

Many diseases affect different communities differently. Breast cancer is more prevalent among the heterosexual community than among the male gay community, for instance. By picking a particular subset of people and a particular disease then I can ‘prove’ all sorts of strange things.

No cigar.

No lung cancer.

rossum

 

[Aramis]

“If…”

I am not Christian. Why should you impose your religious ideas about marriage onto others who do not follow your religion? The law we are discussing in Utah is not a religious law, but a civil law. Civil laws in Utah are subject to the Constitution of the state of Utah and to the Constitution of the USA. Both are civil legal documents. Neither are religious documents.

rossum

Because you are part of an absolutely trivial minority and thus are irrelevant to what society as a whole decides is morally right or wrong, and decides strongly enough to enact laws about.

It’s worth noting that “marriage equality” is a liberal western nation thing, and not accepted in most of the buddhist dominated nations, either.

The existing cases not involving homosexuals all point to the marriage benefits being primarily to encourage the raising of children. The current cases all claim it to be under “equal protection” - California’s was overturned based upon their state constitution, not federal law. The DOMA partial overturn does not impose any burden on states to accept other states marriages, only the feds.

The protection of religious practice under the constitution says you have the right to practice any religion you choose. It nowhere protects you from others imposing laws based upon their morality. After all, not all religions see murder as a violation of good order; a few see it as a perfectly reasonable solution to a personal affront!

Laws can and should reflect the majority’s view of what society is and should be. The protection of the court is supposed to be solely to prevent the rights explicitly granted by the constitution from being infringed.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It isn’t. AIDS is a disease, which is disproportionately low in homosexual females. Does that make AIDS a “heterosexual disease”. It is you who is making an error by ignoring lesbians.

Many diseases affect different communities differently. Breast cancer is more prevalent among the heterosexual community than among the male gay community, for instance. By picking a particular subset of people and a particular disease then I can ‘prove’ all sorts of strange things.

No lung cancer.

rossum

Duh. What sexual practice is identified for the most part as mode of transmission of AIDS? Hint, it’s in the next question. Which demographic tends to favor anal sex, homosexuals or lesbians? No sir, I am not ignoring lesbians. Yes, in the U.S. and in your country of residence, AIDS is a homosexual problem, not a lesbian problem. I don’t think any lesbian needs to complain that AIDS discriminates this way. One would think the health crisis in the 80’s is revealing enough. Just putting on my analytical cap.

Now you segue to female breast cancer. Your m.o. is too obvious.

Perhaps you need to focus on the discriminatory practices of Muslims and Hindus. You know, it’s the kind that is fatal to homosexuals.
,

 

[Slavonic]

I did not state that same sex “marriage” necessitates the destruction of opposite sexed couples. Rather, I stated that in pushing for same sex “marriage” the homosexual activist disrespects the social common good of the natural family unit which is the basis of society.

What is the natural family unit?

By the way, it was you who talked of a lack of respect on my part for homosexuals being different. If same sex coupling is seen as lesser than the coupling of a husband and wife, it is because the latter has telos whereas the former has none, an objective fact. It is not meant as an insult to you or to anybody. For you to say such is an insult is like a one legged person is right in feeling insulted when he is referred to as a one legged person.

But the two legged person who thinks he’s superior to a one legged person because he has two legs is not very nice person at all.

Laws need not respond to every current situation, e.g., homosexual clamor to “marry” each other. When the state bestows the status of marriage to same sex partnerships, it bestows rights to a few on the basis of a form of sexual liberty, with negative consequences for many in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Yet many states, including Utah, passed same-sex marriage bans. If same-sex marriage applies to so few as to not require legal recognition why does it require the legal action of a ban?

Frankly, you seem to contradict yourself by saying first that it requires no legal response, yet you seem to imply in the very next sentence that it’s alleged danger to free speech and religious ‘liberty’ necessitates a legal ban like Utah’s.

 

[josh987654321]

Yeah, but the Bible leaves out the next line, where Jesus said, “Mother! Put down that rock! I said he, not she.”

You use the word “designed”. I do not accept the hypothesis of Intelligent Design; both men and women are evolved.

Evolved from what?

There is research, Camperio-Ciani (2004) Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity, showing that there are genetic factors which cause women to have more children, while men with those same factors have a tendency to be homosexual. In overall terms, those genes survive because the increase in the number of babies born to the women outweighs the decrease in the number fathered by the men. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, and is observed in species other than humans.

Okay, However, you should realise that by the same token of what you classify as natural, it would include pedophilia. Obviously the acts of pedophilia and homosexuality are very different, but when it comes to the orientation being a part of life (natural according to you), they are the same, and I believe that the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of our desire for it, not one person doesn’t have an immoral desire, you can’t embrace one based on orientation and condemn the other on it, because according to the science they would both be innate.

Your argument assumes design as a premise, and I reject the design premise because there is insufficient evidence to support it.

What would be sufficient evidence?

The chances of me getting 4 Ace’s 15-20 times in a row (I don’t know what the exact figure would be, but I know this is definately less than the chances for the fine tuning for life on earth), is better than the fine tuning for life on earth, now I don’t know about you, but when someone gets 4 Ace’s 15 times in a row, I aint concluding luck and chance, I’m looking for the ace they have hidden up their sleves or how they rigged the deck.

Although I could always posit Dawkins multi universe theory, of billions and trillions of other universes and this one just so happened to give me 4 Ace’s 15 times in a row, but I don’t think anyone playing cards with me will buy that.

We are not discussing the “whole concept of marriage”, but the specific concept of legal civil marriage. Other forms of marriage remain unaffected. A Moslem husband may still marry up to four wives at his local Mosque.

rossum

I am also talking about the concept of legal civil marriage, so what is the whole concept of civil marriage if not for the reality that men and women are designed for one another and to uniquely recognise such a union?

Like I said before, I believe it’s only wise to stop and ask why the fence was put up before we take it down, I also believe it’s only wise to address the foundations of civil marriage before changing the structure because if the foundations are gone than the whole structure will just come crashing down.

So thus comes to my question, is any union someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a civil marriage a valid claim? and once civil marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing, but I strongly suspect that to the majority of same sex marriage advocates, that it already does mean nearly nothing anyway, that civil marriage makes practically no sense to them anyway.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Okay, However, you should realise that by the same token of what you classify as natural …

I am using “natural” as an antonym for “designed”. I am not using it as a synonym for “moral”. I am arguing against design. I do not use nature as a source of morality. As you correctly point out, a lot of what happens in nature is not moral.

What would be sufficient evidence?

A living pegasus. Such an organism, with characteristics of two different clades: birds and mammals, would be impossible under evolution. Such an organism could only be designed, as indeed a pegasus was designed by humans.

The chances of me getting 4 Ace’s 15-20 times in a row (I don’t know what the exact figure would be, but I know this is definately less than the chances for the fine tuning for life on earth), is better than the fine tuning for life on earth, now I don’t know about you, but when someone gets 4 Ace’s 15 times in a row, I aint concluding luck and chance, I’m looking for the ace they have hidden up their sleves or how they rigged the deck.

Your calculation does not include the effects of natural selection. Since evolution does include natural selection, then your calculation is irrelevant to any discussion of evolution. Note also that evolution is one of the banned topics here, so we should not pursue this line much further. Probably better to agree to disagree on this specific point.

I am also talking about the concept of legal civil marriage, so what is the whole concept of civil marriage if not for the reality that men and women are designed for one another and to uniquely recognise such a union?

Leaving aside your “designed”, why is there a requirement for “uniquely”? Such a union can be recognised alongside other unions. What, in law, requires the uniqueness? Does it justify not allowing same sex couples access to the various benefits of legal marriage in order to ensure uniqueness?

So thus comes to my question, is any union someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a civil marriage a valid claim?

No. Civil marriage is defined in law. Any such relationship has to meet the requirements defined in the relevant laws. There are established procedure in place for changing laws. If someone wishes to have a new form of relationship recognised as a civil marriage, then they have to change the laws to incorporate the needed changes. That is what gays have done, used existing mechanisms to change the laws so as to allow same-sex civil marriage in some states.

and once civil marriage can mean anything …

It does not mean “anything”. Hence your subsequent argument is based on a false premise.

rossum