Z
Zatzat
Guest
How so?
There are lots of infertile couples, including those who are too old to conceive and those who choose to remain childless. Are those married couples, not in fact married?
- Status
There are lots of infertile couples, including those who are too old to conceive and those who choose to remain childless. Are those married couples, not in fact married?
R
rossum
Guest
To what extent is US law guided by the laws of other countries? By UN Resolutions? Many countries in Europe have gay marriage already while others have its functional equivalent, civil unions. Some US states have one or the other also. You do not have to look outside your own borders for examples to follow.rossum
Arguments about what the Bible, the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon say are not strictly relevant in this specific thread.
Not relevant also, I suppose, is the definition of marriage by every other culture in the history of the world?
rossum
F
free2pray
Guest
Yes But… as i have been trying to get people to answer
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 individuals, races or other groups. 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.
I wrote this post in response to Ashley42 and have been waiting for a comment or something
Z
Zatzat
Guest
God and religion are of no concern when developing moral frameworks or laws.
F
free2pray
Guest
This is a denial of all of history. The very first laws were developed within a Religious framework that’s why Moses is carved on the walls of the supreme court. Don’t secularize history just to make a point. Religion has always been a key factor in determining anything to relates to society
F
free2pray
Guest
Any Philosophical work on morality will address God and the belief thereof and it’s effects on our moral system
A
Alexia2000
Guest
Those are crimes against a person. Two consenting adults, of the same gender, loving each other, is not a crime. Are you suggesting that it should be a crime? What should be the punishment? Stoning to death?
F
free2pray
Guest
Why don’t you actually read the posts instead of reading the first line and stopping to critique it. Critique away after you have actually read the posts or are you just too lazy to respond to it in full, if that’s the case i understand i have done that many times
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
To what extent is US law guided by the laws of other countries? By UN Resolutions? Many countries in Europe have gay marriage already while others have its functional equivalent, civil unions. Some US states have one or the other also. You do not have to look outside your own borders for examples to follow.
All those other countries made their move toward gay marriage about the same time this country made its. If you are going to argue that the past practice of the human race is not a model we should follow, then neither can you argue by your own logic that the current practice of other nations can be a model, right?
So we are back to the fundamental question: Isn’t homosexual marriage a type of criminal lunacy that, as Plato and Jefferson would have argued, deserves to be punished rather than to be accorded civil legitimacy?
To what extent is US law guided by the laws of other countries? By UN Resolutions? Many countries in Europe have gay marriage already while others have its functional equivalent, civil unions. Some US states have one or the other also. You do not have to look outside your own borders for examples to follow.
All those other countries made their move toward gay marriage about the same time this country made its. If you are going to argue that the past practice of the human race is not a model we should follow, then neither can you argue by your own logic that the current practice of other nations can be a model, right?
So we are back to the fundamental question: Isn’t homosexual marriage a type of criminal lunacy that, as Plato and Jefferson would have argued, deserves to be punished rather than to be accorded civil legitimacy?
F
free2pray
Guest
No what i am saying is that a society has the right to not validate something that they judge as morally reprehensible.
F
free2pray
Guest
Plus we are not talking about a punishment of feelings or thoughts it is for God to judge the thoughts and intents of our hearts, but it is societies right and duty to recognizes acts as wrong or not and to govern based off of law (which is hopefully based on what is right and wrong). We are a free country in that we have freedom of speech and belief. We don’t not have freedom of all action or all expression if we did it would be anarchy and wickedness would prevail throughout the land.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Those are crimes against a person. Two consenting adults, of the same gender, loving each other, is not a crime. Are you suggesting that it should be a crime? What should be the punishment? Stoning to death?
Are you deliberately trying to change the subject? The subject is not two people loving each other, which can never be a crime, but two people of the same sex seeking orgasm together, whether or not they love each other.
Society doesn’t have to honor and legalize every perversion in the world. That would be unbridled insanity of the sort that, I truly believe, will lead sooner or later to throwing Christians once again to the lions.
Don’t you see, in history there have been times when the lunatics ran the asylum?
I sometimes wonder if we are not already in such a time.
Are you deliberately trying to change the subject? The subject is not two people loving each other, which can never be a crime, but two people of the same sex seeking orgasm together, whether or not they love each other.
Society doesn’t have to honor and legalize every perversion in the world. That would be unbridled insanity of the sort that, I truly believe, will lead sooner or later to throwing Christians once again to the lions.
Don’t you see, in history there have been times when the lunatics ran the asylum?
I sometimes wonder if we are not already in such a time.
S
surritter
Guest
Of course they are married. This is because their united bodies are still RIGHTLY ORDERED toward procreation. Because the reproductive functions are incapacitated, they cannot have children. But that is simply a defect in the way of the completion of the action which is still biologically ordered to procreation.How so?
There are lots of infertile couples, including those who are too old to conceive and those who choose to remain childless. Are those married couples, not in fact married?
Homosexual couples, on the other hand, are participating in a sexual act that is not RIGHTLY ORDERED to procreation.
It doesn’t matter if infertile couples can fully carry out the procreative aspect. Heterosexual couples are still engaging in an act that is designed for them to engage in by nature.
S
spn82756
Guest
It seems as though this thread is destined toward silliness. Homosexual relationships in the eyes of God is an abomination. Now if someone wants to dispute that…perhaps they should take their argument to God…when they are judged. Perhaps God can set them straight. Hopefully it’s not straight to eternal damnation.
A
Alexia2000
Guest
No, but you are. From whether Gay Marriage is a Civil Right we are now on to whether homosexuality should be criminalised, just as rape and murder is
And which ‘society’ should be framing these laws? The 6% Catholic ‘society’ or 100% of the society? I don’t have a problem with 100% of the society deciding upon a law. I do (and any sane person does) have a severe issue with a 6% minority deciding how 100% of us should live. By all means vote as your conscience dictates; however, please don’t, for a moment, assume that 6% vs. 94% should be imposing their will
If you are so confident that atleast 50%+ of society is against homosexuality then you will get your way (like they have in Uganda; or are trying; I am not sure; but since Uganda is not on my list of countries to emigrate to, I couldn’t care less); otherwise, you won’t; I can’t make this any clearer for anyone here
BTW, how do they achieve that simultaneous ‘you know what’; with synchronised atomic clocks
S
spn82756
Guest
It’s not a legal secular crime and shouldn’t be. It’s a crime against God. And that’s what counts.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Yes and humans used to keep slaves, seeing the errors of our ways, we’ve moved on.
I am well pleased to live in a Country where Moses isn’t carved onto the walls of the Supreme Court.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Quite the contrary, to an unbeliever, it is of no consequence or concern.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
That’s not what the founders of the USA thought:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that **they are endowed by their Creator **with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One of the rights men are endowed by their Creator (God) with is not the right to marry someone of the same gender. Western Civilization is built on a Judeo-Christian moral framework. Atheists and homosexuals (often the same people) want to deny that, and in the process tear down the moral framework of Western Civilization. They want to remove God, because as Dostoevski had Ivan Karamazov claim, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”
That a thing so perverse as homosexual marriage is even being publicly discussed shows just how far we have fallen as a culture.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
- Status