N
Nec5
Guest
No problem at all. We do it all the time via criminal histories, incest, polygamy, public nudists, and a plethora of other bizarre immoralities.
- Status
T
tjm190
Guest
Two classes? There are plenty of classes- polygamists, those who desire multiple marriages, ect.
Almost all of them are denied marriage. But we’ve already been over that. Now, if pension systems or hospitals refuse to acknowledge non-marital relationships, perhaps you ought to take it up with them.
H
hellopeople
Guest
School shootings are because of gay marriage? That is some good detective work Sherlock.
A
awatkins69
Guest
All positive law is based on the natural law. All natural law is based on the Divine Law. Since homosexual conduct is inherently against the natural and Divine Law, it cannot be a right. “Rights” are based on the natural law. How can something against the natural law be a right?
B
Biggie
Guest
I have not dicussed the “religious definition of marriage” and I don’t even know what that means. Can you explain what that is?
Is it your contention that in Loving v. Virginia the SC asserted itself able to define marriage? The SC ruled marriage a “basic civil right”. In other words it precedes the state, therefore cannot be denied by the state. Is statute free to declare that the union of male and female is not a marriage? Civil marriage is confirmed or acknowledged by statute, not defined by it. As I stated nature has defined marriage.
As to polygamy vs. monogamy, as I said previously there has been disagreement about the natural aspects of marriage within limits. That is an example. Can you present an example from the scripture where persons of the same gender were considered, known as or identified as “married”?
The overwhelming majority in our republic and nearly all mankind throughout history has decided that marriage between individuals of the same sex is unnatural and not to be institutionalized. Where it has been carried out, it has been done so by fiat. Does the majority on the one hand matter, and the majority on the other not matter?
But consent is an issue. As I pointed out, a recognized marriage between persons of the same gender also implies that consent bears more weight than the natural order itself. All that matters is that two individuals consent, and their ability to perform the marital act and to create issue is made irrelevant. Marriage, then, is a mere contract, but a contract to do what? Why is it called “marriage” and not “contract”?
F
free2pray
Guest
Let me start by saying that I am going come out hard against your position but I don’t mean you any disrespect, I’m glad that you are willing to have this discussion with us.
First off, I find it interesting that the Homosexual community so feels the desire to have the church and the law vindicate their position. You say, “Just a few ideas that you’re clinging on to and think everyone else should be forced to subscribe to.” but isn’t that what you and other homosexuals are doing when you try to force us to have your redefined definition of marriage. Society must yield in the homosexual’s opinion to their ideals. So they try to win in the courts to force America to submit their values and morality to their standard.
We don’t lack an answer to these questions.
Homosexuals refuse to see that the definition of Marriage has always been between a male and a female, even in cultures that had homosexual practices. The Greeks practiced forms of homosexuality and it was widely accepted! But it was always a side thing in addition to marriage, so even the most pervasive homosexual societies saw that marriage was between a male and a female. This was all to facilitate the family unit no matter what their sexual practices were outside of marriage. So you are wrong. Marriage has always been between a man and woman. Marriage does have to do with biology and procreation. You want to redefine what it has ALWAYS been so that all of mankind will accept what you say is right or wrong. And who is on your side? Certainly God is not, religion is not, for it almost universally condemns homosexuality. Nature is not, common sense is not, the historical definition of marriage is not. So basically here is all those who must bow down to the homosexuals to vindicate their position, God, religion, morality, Nature, common sense, history, and the majority of mankind, all so that you can feel good about the choices you have made. Let’s redefine all reality just-for-you.
What is the point of homosexual marriage? What happens when a society becomes completely homosexual? A society dies because no kiddos are born! What happens when a society is heterosexual? A society grows and there is life! Let’s follow this further. When a man and a man are having homosexual relations he is penetrating the part of the body that is made to expel death and decay. When a man has relations with a woman life is born! Can God make it anymore clear? He condemns it in His revelation to man (the Bible), He has sent fire down on cities who practiced it, much disease and suffer have spread as a result of this lifestyle, and it defies all common sense. The problem is not with those who supposedly “can’t answer” but is with those who refuse to see their sin as sin.
As I have said before; when one knows that they are in the wrong but don’t want to admit it they go through a process of rationalization wherein they attempt to justify their actions and/or behavior. Let me illustrate it this way. If I want to go down to the grocery store I do not say, “I’m going down to the grocery store to buy some bread… and it’s legal.” See when I know that my behavior is right, no justification is necessary there is no need to say “and it’s legal” everyone knows it is legal. “I’m going to go brush my teeth now, and it’s not sin” such things are not said when there is no question what is okay. By saying, “I’m Gay and it’s not sinful” is in it’s self a confession of guilt or at least is an admission that such behavior is not acceptable. Thus why Homosexuals feel the need to justify themselves at every turn even when it is completely irrational to do so, like in the case of saying that the Bible does not condemn Homosexuality, when in fact it does many times and very clearly so.
This is why you are posting on these forums and why homosexuals go to Mass services wearing “Gay Pride” banners so that the media can film them getting refused communion/mass. They want to justify their behavior in the sight of the world so they can feel better about their lifestyle. They want to force the world to vindicate them by trying to make this a civil rights issue instead of a moral issue.
I can prove this, this country, nearly all the industrial world, has made it legal for you to be as homosexual as you want to be. Sodomy is no longer illegal you may live with whomever you wish, you can be with the person that you want to be with. But that’s not enough is it Homosexuals need more than that. They need society to be more than permissive of their behavior they need them to accept it as normal and morally sound. And you all are going force us to see it your way no matter what! It needs to be as normal and valid as any heterosexual union. Never mind that you are with your partner right now and no one is stopping you. You need it to be a marriage because, in your eyes, that is a step on your path to vindication. But what do you need to be vindicated from if you are right, who cares what others think if you know you are right. But your not, and all the testimony that we could ask of is against this behavior. Nevertheless carry on, because this world is growing into the habit of rejecting what is right in front of their faces, and they just might side with you in the end. God will not, however, change to vindicate you and those who follow Him will not accept that which God has condemned as evil as being somehow good.
A
Ashley42
Guest
Quite simply to recognise the union between individuals. That is something that can be applied to pretty much every marriage. What that union is, how it is recognized, etc. are all variable. Love does not have to be a part of it (as we saw with Britney Spears’ marriage), neither does sex or biology. The purpose is simply recognition, either by family, the Church, the State, whatever.
For each of those things you listed, there is a valid reason for discrimination. I won’t go over them here because we are debating gay marriage. Now see if you can do this - without mentioning any of those other things, what valid reason do we have to discriminate against homosexuality?
And who is the autority on natural law? How do we know what the “natural laws” are? And don’t say anything to do with religion, cos we all have freedom of religion and I don’t subscribe to that ****.
You know, the same things were said when debating interracial marriage. “It’s being forced upon us! We don’t want it! Don’t redefine marriage for all of us!”
But that’s a ****** argument. By including same sex couples in civil marriage, you are not taking anything away from anyone who already had it. You are simply including more people. Nothing is being forced upon anyone. Nobody is being forced to marry someone of the same sex if they don’t want to. I don’t have a say in your marriage, why should you have a say in mine?
Wrong. Ask some of the experts in the perry v. schwarzenegger to explain this to you. It has not “always been that way”.
Nature: Since when did you become nature’s spokesperson? Who are you to know why nature does the things she does?
Common sense: Not so common these days I see. It’s common sense that if you want to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, you better have a dam good reason.
God and Religion: I don’t need your imaginary friend to be on my side thank you very much.
Historical definition: The definition has changed over time. Same sex unions were fairly common in aincent Rome. It wasn’t until the Christians came along in 342AD that it started to become outlawed. Elsewhere, there has also been evidence of same sex marriages. Sorry, but the facts don’t back up what you are saying.
Nobody is asking anyone to bow down. By including homosexuals in civil marriage, nothing changes for everybody else.
The point is the same as the point of heterosexual marriage. To recognise the union between individuals.
And this is likely to happen why? Do homosexual couples have homosexual offspring? Oh wait they can’t reproduce. SO THEY MUST RECRUIT! FEAR! INTIMIDATION! LACK OF EDUCATION!
Can you REALLY put forward a good argument that allowing gay marriage will create more homosexuals?! I’d love to hear it. There will always be homosexuals, gay marriage or not! Allowing gays & lesbians to get married isn’t going to create more of them!
They also do that when they know they are right but someone else incorrectly tells them that they are wrong.
Challange: Without using the bible, god, religion, etc. Tell me, WHAT exactly is wrong with homosexuality? What is it about my relationship with my girlfriend that hams us or anyone around us?
A
Ashley42
Guest
It IS a civil rights issue. You THINK it is a moral issue because your imaginary friend tells you that being gay is immoral. Well guess what? Some of us don’t have imaginary friends, we want to live our happy gay lives the way we want to. We’re not hurting anyone, so why SHOULDN’T we be accepted?
We need exactly the same as what heterosexuals do. Nothing more, nothing less.
You couldn’t of got this more wrong if you tried. (Are you trying? Seriously?) Gay men and lesbians are not looking to force anyone to “see it our way”. We just want our choices to be accepted, the same as yours are, and to be free from discrimination.
You make choices every day. Should I have toast for breakfast, or cereal? You make that choice without a second thought because you can, and nobody is interfereing with it. We make the choice to be with the person we love, and all of a sudden the world and his wife wants to meddle in our affairs, telling us what we can and cannot do, questioning us, telling us we are immoral, ill, disgusting, whatever. Try going through your life and having that with you ALL THE TIME. It’s not very nice.
Until society leaves us alone, we will not stop. Just as the blacks fought for equality, we are doing the same.
Society will eventually come around and be accepting of us. That is because society is progressive.
Religion may not ever be accepting of us, because religion is backwards in that respect. But that doesn’t matter, because as long as we can distance ourselfves from your hatred, we’ll be OK.
S
surritter
Guest
Forget everything else on this thread, Ashley – we have now come to the crux of the debate. Please follow me on this: I was trying to show that sex and biology are WHY marriage even exists. Recall my claim that biology/sexual relations is geared toward procreation, which results in a family, which requires stability, and this necessity has been recognized by society and governments for centuries in the form of marriage.
Now, when you insisted that sex and the biology of genitalia have nothing to do with marriage, the question boiled down to what is the purpose of marriage if anything having to do with sex is removed from the requirements or “design.”
Your answer is that it is “simply to recognise the union between individuals.” If that is the case, then you must admit that marriage as you see it should be possible for three or four persons together. Please acknowledge yes or no…
A
Ashley42
Guest
First of all, sex is not the only way to create a family. It may be the only way to create kids, but there are a hell of a lot of kids out there that need families for whatever reason. There are already a great deal of gay people out there who have kids for whatever reason: adoption, from a previous marriage, etc. Why should they be denied the stability that comes with marriage?
In a black and white world, we would have only males and females getting married, having babies, and that would be the only definition of a family unit. Reality is quite different from that as I have just explained. So as simple as your little “ordered towards procreation” rule is, reality is NOT that simple - and the law needs to reflect reality, not religious ideals.
If it were all about biology and procreation, do you think Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage should of been allowed? Do you think those two were geared towards procreation? The couple didn’t even know themselves. And explain to me - an 80 year old couple who are adament they never want to have sex. Does this result in a family? Does this require stability? Should it be recognized by society and the government when we know for a fact that this marriage is NOT geared towards biological procreation and creating a family? Why is this marriage more just that a marriage between two gay women who have adopted 3 children?
That’s not marriage how I see it, that’s just the basic purpose of any marriage - bit it civil, religious, gay, polygamous, incestuous, whatever. It is one thing that can be applied to all marriages. That’s all. Not my oppinion, just a basic purpose.
If three or four people want a recognised union and call it marriage, fine. If they want that union recognised under law, they can go for it - in the same way we are. They will be fighting on a different battlefield though - since there are obstacles to legal recognition of polygamous marriage that simply don’t apply to gay marriage.
S
surritter
Guest
Again, it’s because marriage is based on a relationship that is designed to produce children (whether or not that’s ever fulfilled; see below).
It is because every couple described in your paragraph here is given the basic design to allow procreation, even if they cannot or choose not to fulfill it. Why does this point continually elude you? Yes, specific couples such as Britney Spears or the 80-year-old folks are lacking in other follow-on areas that make for a stable or a fruitful marriage, but they have already met the basic requirement according to nature, so it is a true marriage. But you will not see this, as you cannot fathom how marriage is related to the natural order – you see it as merely a contractual relationship.
But what is it uniting them for? You keep saying “recognize a union” but why do they need uniting? Everything they wish for can be drawn up with legal papers. Love doesn’t need certifying, does it?
And trust me, if marriage takes on the definition that you wish to apply to it, those legal obstacles for polygamous groups will fall with no trouble at all. This is because there is no purpose for marriage as an institution if the procreative element is torn out of its definition.
A
Ashley42
Guest
So why should a couple who cannot fulfil it be treated differently to a couple that choose not to? Or in the case of the 80 year olds, it’s the same - they cannot fulfil it.
If marriage is, as you say, all about “the basic design to allow procreation”, then why allow ANY couple that cannot or will not procreate? What advantage or interest does Society have in handing out marriages to couples who cannot or will not procreate, if the purpose is all about procreation? Your argument is so flawed it’s unbelievable. Civil marriage is simply not about procreation. It’s not about what I want it to be or what you want it to be, it’s about what it IS.
Why do a heterosexual couple need uniting? Why shouldn’t thay have to jump through the hoops and incur the extra costs of hiring soliciters, etc, to get those legal rights?
Exceept that nearly every law that comes with marriage is written towards two people. That would have to change… very big job there.
If that were really the case, polygamous marriage would already be allowed in California. The justice overtuned Prop 22, which read:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”
but did 18,000 polygamists get married? No, because overturning that statute only allowed gay marriage, not polygamous marriage. The legal obstacles for polygamous marriage were still there.
S
surritter
Guest
But I didn’t say that they must be able to fulfill it. This is about what something IS, not whether or not it can FUNCTION. Recall, the car analogy. The 80-year-old couple is akin to the car in the garage – it’s not being driven, but it’s still a car. You however are trying to take a car (marriage) and call it an airplane. See the difference?
See my answer above. It’s not society that decides what marriage is, it just IS. Society can certify that there is a unit or cell there, but does not require the couple to enlarge that cell. I charitably submit that your argument is flawed, but you cannot see it so you lash out at the truth. I don’t blame you, I’m just gently trying to present the reality. Please don’t let emotions cloud your thinking – it may take many years but I hope these posts will linger in your mind as food for thought later on.
Again, this has been answered. They need uniting to establish a solid, irrevocable unit or cell so that children may safely enter the world and be nurtured. Please don’t reply that many married parents don’t provide a safe or nurturing environment; I know that but we are talking about the DESIGN, remember?
In post #57, I used the analogy of bulimia. Allow me to recap the gist of it: Like sex, food also has two inseparable aspects: the pleasure of enjoying the taste, and also the nutritional value to the body. You would agree that it’s wrong for someone to eat a wonderful meal but then throw it up. Is that because you are “culturally conditioned” to react that way? No, you instinctively know that it’s going against the DESIGN of the body to intentionally circumvent one aspect of a natural biological function when it is tied so closely with another. Your thoughts, please…
So what? If you can find no reason from nature or logic to say that they are not “marriages,” then you are saying that these “marriages” are acceptable, once the legislative inertia is conquered.
F
free2pray
Guest
I am sad that you are unwilling to see the soundness of our arguments, God and religion are a concern when developing any moral framework or laws.
Morality has to do with oughts and ought nots so when we say that homosexuality ought not to be practiced then we are speaking within a moral framework. We are not reproaching the civil rights of a homosexual person by saying that homosexuality ought not to be practiced. Civil rights has less to do with behavior and more to do with an individual, race or other group. Granted that homosexuals have become a group but here is the rub, they are defining themselves based on their actions. SO to speak against their actions now becomes an assault on how they have decided to identify themselves. But discussion of whether or not these acts ought to be practiced or not MUST continue or we are not free to speak or judge what is morally right, which is also a breach of our civil rights. The problem is that homosexuals have decided that to speak against this act is breach of civil rights because then we are seen to be discriminating against people when in fact we are speaking of oughts and ought nots. Our language becomes “hate speech” and Pastors and Priests are arrested for preaching their holy book which states that this is morally wrong! So the “so called” persecuted ones i.e homosexuals become the ones who are persecuting Christians because the Christians believe it is wrong. So in your cause to vindicate yourself you condemn most of the world who believes this is wrong, and if a society accepts your plight as being legitimate then legal action must be taken against those who say this is wrong. Very ironic if you ask me for this leads to a very fundamental breach of human rights, freedom of speech. How can this be? Do we have the right to speak against any action within a moral framework? Surely we must be free to decide whether this is moral. If society decides that it is not moral, or rather recognizes that it is immoral, will it ever be seen as a condemnation of an act and not a person (though a person can be condemned for his acts)? I understand that acts can define people for example when someone lies we see him as a liar (with some exceptions), or when someone rapes we call him a rapist, or when someone murders that person is called a murder and so on and a person can be prosecuted according to his acts in regards to the law, but this doesn’t mean that we don’t that the right and the duty to decide whether these acts are moral or not. And it doesn’t mean that just because Homosexuals have placed their identity in this behavior that we cannot judge it as a moral ought not.
Since our arguments on the morality of this issue are rejected by you and you have decided where we may go or not go, to whom we may appeal and whom we may not appeal, in regards to the morality of this behavior perhaps the testimony of Medical Doctors will sway you. below i will link you to a site where you can read that this behavior, because we are not designed for it (whether by God or nature), is damaging to a person’s psyche and to a person’s health. remember that THOUSANDS of articles by medical professionals have demonstrated that these acts go against the natural use of the human body and are thus destructive.
narth.com/menus/medical.html
A
Ashley42
Guest
But what is the point in saying something must be designed to do something but it doesn’t matter if it cannot? It’s like saying, “I’d like a TV that is designed to recieve satalite channels please, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work.”
Another analogy. I am a software developer. Imagine a client asks me to write a peice of software to do a job. I draw up a design that solves his problem. I write the software, hand it over to the client, and it doesn’t work. Looks very nice, but doesn’t do the job it was DESIGNED to do. The client is not happy obviously, but I say, “Don’t complain. It was DESIGNE to to the job. It doesn’t really matter that it doesn’t, does it?”
No, not really. I’m not trying to change one thing to a completely different thing, I am trying to expand an existing definition to fit more people. It’s more like saying, we have cars and we have airplanes, and they are called vehicles. Now we also have these flying car things, why can’t they be vehicles too?
Actually no. We as humans defined the languages we speak. It is up to us to make the definitions of particular words. As long as those communicating understand the definitions, then there is no problem.
And why should children adopted by gay and lesbian couples also be afforded that “solid, irrevocable unit or cell”?
Only because vomiting does physical damage to a person. If you could eat, click your fingers and the extra food just dissapeared, then there would be no problem. On the other hand, the act of gay sex, if done properly, is not at all physically damaging. Apples and oranges.
I think it’s a little more complicated than that. There’s a whole slew of ethical and legal things that don’t apply to gay marriage. If you want to discuss them, start a new thread. We’re talking gay marriage here.
F
free2pray
Guest
F
free2pray
Guest
You have just admitted that homosexuality ought not to be and have made a moral statement that condemns homosexuality. You have agreed with us that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
F
free2pray
Guest
Interesting that you use the term same “sex unions” were common in ancient Rome. I am not denying that homosexual behavior was practiced in ancient Greece or Rome what i said was that when they married they married a man and a woman and all that other sexual behavior was in addition to that. They did not marry two men to each other or two women to each other. The historical facts are, in fact, against you because even in the most homosexual saturated societies of the past marriage was still defined as between a male and female.
S
surritter
Guest
Ancient Rome also had something called a vomitorium.
Ashley, bulimia is a disorder. It is not wrong merely because it can harm the person. This has been my continual point – things can be wrong for reasons other than direct harm. Bulimia is wrong because it is a misuse of food. It is wrong because it engages the biological function of processing food but divorces it from the “rightly ordered” practical side of eating, which is nutrition.
Ashley, bulimia is a disorder. It is not wrong merely because it can harm the person. This has been my continual point – things can be wrong for reasons other than direct harm. Bulimia is wrong because it is a misuse of food. It is wrong because it engages the biological function of processing food but divorces it from the “rightly ordered” practical side of eating, which is nutrition.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. That is an oxymoron. Marriage is between a man and a woman. People are not free to marry whomever or whatever they want. A man and a donkey are not a marriage, two men are not a marriage, a woman and a cat are not a marriage, two women are not a marriage. It’s against nature and against God’s plan.
To say it is a civil right would be funny if it weren’t besmirching those who did fight for real civil rights.
To say it is a civil right would be funny if it weren’t besmirching those who did fight for real civil rights.
- Status