Gay marriage is a civil right

[Alexia2000]

…

It may come as a surprise but straight men (and women!) do this sort of thing too. It’s not limited to Homogays!

Your entire post demonstrates the narrow mindedness of those who are opposed to homosexuality. “EWWW! BUM SEX! GROSS!”. It’s the kind of hogwash you would expect from kids in the playground. Not once have you considered that many gay men do not practise anal sex, or do so in a safe way that does not result in the things you have discribed. Not once have you considered the fact that anal sex is not restricted to gay men. Not once have you considered that lesbians also exist, and obviously there is no penile/anal intercourse there!

That is an extremely good point

Let me answer before anyone else does; please, pretty please :extrahappy:

With lesbians, the “EWWW! BUM SEX! GROSS!” factor doesn’t quite exist. Perhaps the reason why society doesn’t have any issue with two women, lesbian or not, walking hand in hand down the high-street window-shopping. Two men doing the same will stop the traffic, dead (well, not quite, but you get the picture)

However, even though a credible argument does not exist against lesbianism (apart from because it is against the teachings of the Bible), any endorsement of the same will lead to a slippery slope; next you will get gay men asking for the same under gender equality and that will lead to, “EWWW! BUM SEX! GROSS!”

BTW, for asexuals it is, “EWWW! SEX! GROSS!”; that condemns the whole lot of you. Now there

Long time ago, when I was still dating men, with one things got far enough; when I told him that I was asexual, he called me a weirdo; I struck back with, “if the world is Gods’ laboratory, then asexuals are ‘purity control’; we are the Kelvin Zero of all sexual perversions”. Not that this thicko understood what I meant. Looks like that Catholics are trying to take over from the asexuals

I now have to leave the playground and do some work for which I am getting paid; for otherwise, lesbian or not, I will get fired (or shot or stoned or be subjected to one or the other kind of medieval torture; nobody has mentioned burning at the stake, yet)

 

[Ashley42]

Do anal sex? I fail to see your point. It doesn’t matter who does it; it’s still perverse, ugly, and not the least bit sanitary, don’t you imagine?

No, not if done safely. And I don’t see why it should be used as a point to deny people their rights.

What homosexuals want is to defy the law of Nature and of Nature’s God.

No, what homosexuals want is to be treated equally to heterosexuals.

Until then, I think Anatomy 101 clearly cannot be used to support the absurd notion of gay marriage.

Marriage should have nothing to do with anatomy. I don’t even see why this has been bought up.

So if a male and a female were designed to go together in order to create new life, what were these other supposed “genders” designed for?

Good question. I don’t know that and obviously neither do you. Does that mean we should discount them? Ignore them? Deny them their rights?
Nature is not even about ‘design’. Nature as we see it today is just the result of billions of years of evolution. We were not designed to do what we do, we simply evolved that way. And you know the thiing about evolution, well it doesn’t work so well if the variables are always the same - nothing changes. There are many variations from ‘the norm’. It’s actually a good thing in terms of nature and evolution.

 

[surritter]

Marriage should have nothing to do with anatomy.

This sums it all up. Has our world really gone this mad?

 

[Ashley42]

This sums it all up. Has our world really gone this mad?

Is it really that mad to legally recognise a loving relationship by two people whose anatomy does not fit togehter? If it were all about anatomy, why would we have reason to allow a marriage to say, someone who had had his anatomy removed by way of firearm during a war?
If it’s about anatomy, then let’s make it about anatomy:
“Only a person with a functional penis and a person with a functional vagina are permitted to get married”.
That will stop the homogays! But wait, that rules out the poor soldier above…

If it’s about procreation, then:
“Only individuals who have the ability to procreate may get married”
But that rules out infertile people and the elderly. (But interestingly not polygamists (more women = potentially more babies, right?!) or incestuous couples.)

So let’s make it about babies!
“Only individuals who plan to raise children may get married”
So the couple who don’t plan on having kids are all out. But the blasted homogays can get married since they can adopt! What are we to do?

“Only two people who were designed to procreate by a deity whose existance cannot be proven, and not everybody believes in (or should believe in), are allowed to get married”.
Ok this works! That will stop those aweful dirty homogays from getting married but we can still include the soldier, the infertile, the elderly and the couple who don’t plan on having kids in our elite club called ‘marriage’.

 

[surritter]

Is it really that mad to legally recognise a loving relationship by two people whose anatomy does not fit togehter? If it were all about anatomy, why would we have reason to allow a marriage to say, someone who had had his anatomy removed by way of firearm during a war?
If it’s about anatomy, then let’s make it about anatomy:
“Only a person with a functional penis and a person with a functional vagina are permitted to get married”.
That will stop the homogays! But wait, that rules out the poor soldier above…

If it’s about procreation, then:
“Only individuals who have the ability to procreate may get married”
But that rules out infertile people and the elderly. (But interestingly not polygamists (more women = potentially more babies, right?!) or incestuous couples.)

So let’s make it about babies!
“Only individuals who plan to raise children may get married”
So the couple who don’t plan on having kids are all out. But the blasted homogays can get married since they can adopt! What are we to do?

“Only two people who were designed to procreate by a deity whose existance cannot be proven, and not everybody believes in (or should believe in), are allowed to get married”.
Ok this works! That will stop those aweful dirty homogays from getting married but we can still include the soldier, the infertile, the elderly and the couple who don’t plan on having kids in our elite club called ‘marriage’.

I’m only going to explain this one more time. If you choose to disagree with me, that’s fine. But let’s stop bringing up scenarios that have been clearly explained to you. (Why don’t you read my posts? Is it because you are already formulating a response without thinking through the logic presented to you?)

Sex is designed as an action between a man and a woman. Its purpose is twofold: to allow them to express love to each other, and to allow for procreation. (Can you imagine how long the human race would last if the reproductive process were onerous!)

Now, if two people whose bodies are designed by nature to go together for these purposes choose to do so, they are then acting within the bounds of their nature.

You bring up many situations which might thwart procreation, but they do not violate the designed nature of the ACT.

I have already explained about infertile couples. Their bodies are of the design that they go together. Even though their bodies have lost the biological ability to procreate, the ACTION they engage in is still one that is following a desgin.

Think of it this way: Suppose I am given a roadmap to get from New York to Chicago. (I know you’re in the UK, but I hope you have a general sense of the direction.) If I embark on that trip, but halfway there my car breaks down, I have still engaged in the trip as it was DESIGNED. But if I leave New York and get on the freeway that goes to Miami, don’t you agree that I have deviated from the DESIGN of the trip?

So all the situations you present are not relevant of the discussion.

Can’t you see that this is not about “ugly” “homogays” or whatever term you wish to attempt to put on our lips. This is about DESIGN, and homosexual relations are engaging in an ACT which is deviating from the DESIGN. Yes, there are aberrations (for God’s sake, look that word up in a dictionary!) but these aberrations do not ALTER the design. This is simple logic and philosophy.

 

[Alexia2000]

I’m only going to explain this one more time. If you choose to disagree with me, that’s fine. But let’s stop bringing up scenarios that have been clearly explained to you. (Why don’t you read my posts? Is it because you are already formulating a response without thinking through the logic presented to you?)

Sex is designed as an action between a man and a woman. Its purpose is twofold: to allow them to express love to each other, and to allow for procreation. (Can you imagine how long the human race would last if the reproductive process were onerous!)

Now, if two people whose bodies are designed by nature to go together for these purposes choose to do so, they are then acting within the bounds of their nature.

You bring up many situations which might thwart procreation, but they do not violate the designed nature of the ACT.

I have already explained about infertile couples. Their bodies are of the design that they go together. Even though their bodies have lost the biological ability to procreate, the ACTION they engage in is still one that is following a desgin.

Think of it this way: Suppose I am given a roadmap to get from New York to Chicago. (I know you’re in the UK, but I hope you have a general sense of the direction.) If I embark on that trip, but halfway there my car breaks down, I have still engaged in the trip as it was DESIGNED. But if I leave New York and get on the freeway that goes to Miami, don’t you agree that I have deviated from the DESIGN of the trip?

So all the situations you present are not relevant of the discussion.

Can’t you see that this is not about “ugly” “homogays” or whatever term you wish to attempt to put on our lips. This is about DESIGN, and homosexual relations are engaging in an ACT which is deviating from the DESIGN. Yes, there are aberrations (for God’s sake, look that word up in a dictionary!) but these aberrations do not ALTER the design. This is simple logic and philosophy.

But, surritter, what precisely has sex ‘as nature intended’ to ‘produce babies and all the rest of it’ got to do with marriage, which in essence, is a ‘contract’ developed by humans to ensure amongst other things, inheritance

I ofcourse understand marriage in its religious context, but what on earth has nature to do with marriage; I have never seen two giraffes get married; well, apart from two of my friends who are both very, very tall and look like giraffes

PS. Some of 'em homogays are not thaaaat ugly

 

[Ashley42]

But let’s stop bringing up scenarios that have been clearly explained to you.

Because nothing of any substance has been explained to me. I’ve got a really good idea of your THEORIES about nature and your IDEAS about what marriage should or should not be, but I have yet to hear any reasonable argument, based on FACT that backs up why you think that gay marriage is not a civil right.

Sex is designed as an action between a man and a woman.

How can you prove this? (And don’t say God here because people have been trying for yeears to prove his existance and have constantly failed). What FACTS do you have to back up your theory that sex was designed? Got any blueprints? No, all you have is an idea based on your narrow minded view of nature.

Even though their bodies have lost the biological ability to procreate, the ACTION they engage in is still one that is following a desgin.

Even if this were the case (which of course you can’t prove since your theories are based on this idea of ‘design’ by a god whose existance cannot be proven), this would rule out some hermaphrodites.

don’t you agree that I have deviated from the DESIGN of the trip?

Maybe so, but you should be free to go to Miami if you want! We should all be free to go to Miami! Just the same if we have ‘deviated’ from our so-called ‘design’.

Until you can offer me some solid evidence of this “design” you speak of, everything you say can be simply dismissed.

 

[surritter]

But, surritter, what precisely has sex ‘as nature intended’ to ‘produce babies and all the rest of it’ got to do with marriage, which in essence, is a ‘contract’ developed by humans to ensure amongst other things, inheritance

I ofcourse understand marriage in its religious context, but what on earth has nature to do with marriage; I have never seen two giraffes get married; well, apart from two of my friends who are both very, very tall and look like giraffes

PS. Some of 'em homogays are not thaaaat ugly

Good point. Or points, I should say – I guess the idea was tossed about that gay sex was “ugly,” not the people! (I would never say that either is ugly – there are many bodily functions that might be called ugly but they are still within the design of the body. So that’s why I focus on the design, not the gracefulness of a particular act!)

My post to Ashley was setting the stage in order to proceed to a proper discussion of marriage, which is your question. Of course marriage doesn’t, on a physical level, suddenly make sex or procreation possible. But we all need to be on the same page regarding the design of sexual relations first: it is intended to make a biological environment where reproduction can happen.

Since sex and procreation are related by design, then a marriage is a solemn solidification of the couple’s relationship (one based on anatomy, Ashley!) so that a stable “cell” is established for the entrance of children. That’s the first cornerstone in the definition of marriage – even if children never enter that family. Marriage also provides legal provisions for the spouses; but they are a follow-on to the integral reason for marriage.

Ashley and Alexia wish to allow for these legal provisions to be bestowed on couples formed by people of any sexual combination. But then it is not a marriage; it’s not even a “partnership,” other than a few legal papers. There is no cell created for a family.

You might say that’s all that you ask for. I say fine, but then it’s no different than any other business arrangement such as creating a will, or signing papers to be the owner of a new McDonald’s franchise. Those aren’t marriages.

 

[spn82756]

Yuck…I just saw an invisible pink unicorn squished in the middle of the road. looks like it was hit by a tractor-trailer truck. Poor…poor invisible pink unicorn.

 

[surritter]

Because nothing of any substance has been explained to me. I’ve got a really good idea of your THEORIES about nature and your IDEAS about what marriage should or should not be, but I have yet to hear any reasonable argument, based on FACT that backs up why you think that gay marriage is not a civil right.

My arguments are not at least reasonable? I have shown you how it’s only possible for heterosexual couples to create babies. Why do you ignore scientific facts? The legal provisions for marriage are based on that scientific fact.

How can you prove this? (And don’t say God here because people have been trying for yeears to prove his existance and have constantly failed). What FACTS do you have to back up your theory that sex was designed? Got any blueprints? No, all you have is an idea based on your narrow minded view of nature.

Have you noticed that not ONCE have I mentioned God (except to tell you to look up a word in the dictionary ) My FACTS are based on anatomy. The sticking point is that you don’t see marriage as something that is related to a family or children, so you think that the science of biology is irrelevant.

Even if this were the case (which of course you can’t prove since your theories are based on this idea of ‘design’ by a god whose existance cannot be proven), this would rule out some hermaphrodites.

You still haven’t looked up that word, have you?

Maybe so, but you should be free to go to Miami if you want! We should all be free to go to Miami! Just the same if we have ‘deviated’ from our so-called ‘design’.

Really? Is your ear designed for you to stuff lasagna in it all day rather than eating the lasagna? And don’t say: “Well if that’s what I want to do, I can do it.” That may be true sometimes (before the men in white coats come for you), but I should hope that you see an aberration in such a person that is dangerous on one level or another.

 

[Ashley42]

Interesting that you say you saw it, since it’s invisible…

Then again, a lot of people claim to have seen or spoken to God!

“The invisible and the nonexistant look very much alike”

 

[spn82756]

My arguments are not at least reasonable? I have shown you how it’s only possible for heterosexual couples to create babies. Why do you ignore scientific facts? The legal provisions for marriage are based on that scientific fact.

intransigence?

Have you noticed that not ONCE have I mentioned God (except to tell you to look up a word in the dictionary ) My FACTS are based on anatomy. The sticking point is that you don’t see marriage as something that is related to a family or children, so you think that the science of biology is irrelevant.

hmmm…as it turns out…the invisible pink unicorn was having sexual relations with the tractor trailer truck.

Really? Is your ear designed for you to stuff lasagna in it all day rather than eating the lasagna? And don’t say: “Well if that’s what I want to do, I can do it.” That may be true on a physical level, but I should hope that you see an aberration in that person that is dangerous on one level or another.

And!..there is only so much lasagna you can fit in one ear.

I know…sometimes I feel I just HAVE to be silly.

 

[spn82756]

Interesting that you say you saw it, since it’s invisible…

Then again, a lot of people claim to have seen or spoken to God!

“The invisible and the nonexistant look very much alike”

Yes…many people have spoken to God. Thousands of them about 2000 years ago.

BTW…He’s not pink…invisible…or a unicorn. And he’s not gay either.

 

[Alexia2000]

Good point. Or points, I should say – I guess the idea was tossed about that gay sex was “ugly,” not the people! (I would never say that either is ugly – there are many bodily functions that might be called ugly but they are still within the design of the body. So that’s why I focus on the design, not the gracefulness of a particular act!)

My post to Ashley was setting the stage in order to proceed to a proper discussion of marriage, which is your question. Of course marriage doesn’t, on a physical level, suddenly make sex or procreation possible. But we all need to be on the same page regarding the design of sexual relations first: it is intended to make a biological environment where reproduction can happen

Since sex and procreation are related by design, then a marriage is a solemn solidification of the couple’s relationship (one based on anatomy, Ashley!) so that a stable “cell” is established for the entrance of children. That’s the first cornerstone in the definition of marriage – even if children never enter that family. Marriage also provides legal provisions for the spouses; but they are a follow-on to the integral reason for marriage.

Ashley and Alexia wish to allow for these legal provisions to be bestowed on couples formed by people of any sexual combination. But then it is not a marriage; it’s not even a “partnership,” other than a few legal papers. There is no cell created for a family.

You might say that’s all that you ask for. I say fine, but then it’s no different than any other business arrangement such as creating a will, or signing papers to be the owner of a new McDonald’s franchise. Those aren’t marriages.

Surritter, I am in complete agreement with you where you define marriage in the Catholic context as between complementary genders for the purpose of procreation and it is something life-long so that a stable family environment can be created for the offspring(s). Add Nature to the above definition too; I agree with that too

But we are talking about a Civil Marriage; nowhere in the civil marriage contract are these things mentioned; in Spain, same gender marriages happen (I am not talking about Civil Partnerships here)

In my 20s, I had given marriage some consideration. That is what society expected. There was one little problem; the mere thought of a man touching me, let alone having sex with me, made me physically sick. I was, at that time, still hopeful that I would meet some guy who I could convince that we could get married but never have sex. Now let us proceed hypothetically (for I have just had lunch and anything other than a hypothetical situation may make me puke on my desk). Had I found that someone, and got married to him in a Civil ceremony, then would I be married to a man or would I simply have acquired franchise rights on him? For, I would have had no intention to ever have sex with him and baring, artificial insemination, would not have had any children

Yes, within the Catholic context I would not have been married for a Catholic wedding would have been out of the question; we could have lied but what is the point of lying just to get married in a Church. But from a Civil perspective, that marriage would have been as valid as any other complementary gender marriage

The point is that from a Civil point of view, it does not matter whether procreation is possible or even wanted. The only thing that matters is that two adults, who are free to give their consent, wish to be joined in this legal union

Now, if someone like me could have been married in a Civil ceremony, even though I had no intention to ever hit the ‘procreate’ program button, then why cannot a same-gender couple do the same

 

[rossum]

Yes…many people have spoken to God. Thousands of them about 2000 years ago.

BTW…He’s not pink…invisible…or a unicorn. And he’s not gay either.

Nor did He get married, so He is possibly not the best example to quote in this discussion.

rossum

 

[Des]

That is what I have been trying to get across; thank you

I agree; however I agree simply because I am Catholic. But an Atheist who does not believe in God and therefore couldn’t possibly take the Bible as anything more entertaining as Harry Potters next adventure with the sky fairies wearing a cloak of invisibility, couldn’t care less

You mean the same Athiests who believe in an infinite invisible matter that always always was and always will be? I think I get you.

You also say you’re a Catholic. Are you admitting here and now that God opposes 100 percent, your unnatural union with another woman?

 

[Alexia2000]

You mean the same Athiests who believe in an infinite invisible matter that always always was and always will be? I think I get you.

Probably; or would that be, possibly

You also say you’re a Catholic. Are you admitting here and now that God opposes 100 percent, your unnatural union with another woman?

This thread is not about me or what I will or will not confess to at the service of reconciliation tonight

Before I put a foot in the Catholic Church, I first spoke to my parish priest and was completely honest with him; he gave me his thoughts and now it is between me and God; suffice to say, that although I am in a relationship with another woman, I am not committing a sin

But what exactly has my situation got to do whether a Civil Marriage is a Civil right or not. For me, it is a debate about equality under secular law. I have already made my own position very clear; I have no intention to ever go through a marriage with a woman or with a man; I am already in a Civil Partnership with another woman. On this topic, I don’t have an axe to grind

You will notice that I have not asked of you (or of anyone else) to declare on an open forum the sins which you may have committed and whether you are willing to repent; but that is just me. It is ofcourse possible that all here (except for me) are without sin

PS. Another position I have made clear is that, hypothetically, were there a ‘vote’ on this issue, I will elect to abstain

 

[Ashley42]

My arguments are not at least reasonable? I have shown you how it’s only possible for heterosexual couples to create babies. Why do you ignore scientific facts? The legal provisions for marriage are based on that scientific fact.

But they are not! That’s the point!

Have you noticed that not ONCE have I mentioned God (except to tell you to look up a word in the dictionary ) My FACTS are based on anatomy. The sticking point is that you don’t see marriage as something that is related to a family or children, so you think that the science of biology is irrelevant.

When you mention ‘design’, I can only assume you are talking about God. I contend that there is no “design”, it is just the way things are.
You can have family and children without doing the procreation bit youself. The law recognises that. In fact, it puts no provision on procreation, family, or children. How can you fail to see that?

Is your ear designed for you to stuff lasagna in it all day rather than eating the lasagna?

How do you know your ear was ‘designed’ to do anything? All we know is that we have an orifice that has organs in it that react to sound. Why shouldn’t one stuff lasagne into their ear if they enjoy it? As long as they don’t do it to the point where damage will result. Ok so it’s not what you and I would classify as “normal” or “usual” but seriously, so what? Would you deny marriage rights to someone who gains enjoyment out of stuffing lasagne in their ear?

Yes…many people have spoken to God. Thousands of them about 2000 years ago

Correction: Many people -think- they have spoken to God, in just the same way that a lot of people -think- they have been abducted by aliens, seen ghosts or flying saucers.

 

[spn82756]

How do you know your ear was ‘designed’ to do anything? All we know is that we have an orifice that has organs in it that react to sound. Why shouldn’t one stuff lasagne into their ear if they enjoy it? As long as they don’t do it to the point where damage will result. Ok so it’s not what you and I would classify as “normal” or “usual” but seriously, so what? Would you deny marriage rights to someone who gains enjoyment out of stuffing lasagne in their ear?

I was going to say that you border on the ridiculous…but I can’t. What you state is ridiculous! By your own warped logic…who are you to tell someone not to stuff lasagna in their ear past the point of damage?

Correction: Many people -think- they have spoken to God, in just the same way that a lot of people -think- they have been abducted by aliens, seen ghosts or flying saucers.

Nope…many have spoken to Jesus…and he is God. Whether or not you believe it makes no difference. I don’t know you…but your hatred for God is probably based on your unnatural sexual preference.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I agree; however I agree simply because I am Catholic. But an Atheist who does not believe in God and therefore couldn’t possibly take the Bible as anything more entertaining as Harry Potters next adventure with the sky fairies wearing a cloak of invisibility, couldn’t care less

Alexia, you and Ashley have both studiously avoided my references to Plato and Jefferson, who recommended punishment, not marriage rights, for those who engage in homosexual sex. You can’t claim they were Catholic or beholden to the Catholic point of view.

Would either or both of you care to speculate why homosexual sex was so offensive to Plato and Jefferson? Would you say it was because they both saw it as offensive to common sense (the parts don’t fit) or some other reason?

Also, would you like to speculate on why, for the first time in history, homosexuals all over the world in the last 15 or 20 years are demanding that their relationships be recognized and dignified by a marriage certificate?