Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The understanding of natural law is essential in this debate, and our state already understands it. State all have laws on who can marry and who cannot marry. People do not have the right to may anybody. The state does not allow people to marry relatives, people under the age of 18 to 15 (depending upon the state) with parental consent, people under the age of 12, or people of the same sex (depending upon the state). Why does the state stop these people for getting married? Because it goes against the laws of nature. In all situations, life can not come from these relationships or if life does come it will be in great jeopardy.

Does this mean that all marriages have to produce life? No, because the relationship by nature has the possibility to produce life. Two males and two females can never natural produce life naturally, but a matured male and matured female all have the possibilities to produce life. It is natural for a male and a female to come together sexually, but it is not natural for two people of the same sex to come together sexually.

If homosexuality is unnatural, then why are people born like that? This happens all the time in nature: people being born with unnatural conditions. People with Down syndrome are unnatural because they have an extra chromosome, but that does not like them less of a person. The same is with people who are born with homosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction is unnatural but it does not make them less of a person.
 
cristininha said:
The problem with the NARTH’s approach is that they are a group of “experts” who believe and assume there is something intrinsically wrong and pathological about homosexuality and that it can be “healed”, when in fact no one can prove that. That’s why NARTH is a fringe organization.
Click to expand...
Well, there *is *something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. NARTH may be on the fringe but not because of the nature of homosexuality, rather because of the nature of homosexual activism. Homeopathy is on the fringe of medical science, but it works for many people. The same can be said for reparative therapy.

The indesputable fact is that there are many people who were formerly homosexual who are now living normal, happy lives. Not all, of course but enough. Just because there is not a perfect understand of how their orientation was resolved does not mean that research should not continue.
 
Okay, my first point is, why can’t the state stop calling the legal contracts they issue, “marriage licenses”, and start calling them all “civil unions”? The church could then marry whoever they want, and this dispute would be over!
 
Roamin_Catholic said:
Okay, my first point is, why can’t the state stop calling the legal contracts they issue, “marriage licenses”, and start calling them all “civil unions”? The church could then marry whoever they want, and this dispute would be over!
Click to expand...
One thing because a marriage license is not a contract. It is basically a statement that there is no legal impediment to marriage. Hithermore, same gender has been an impediment because by definition marriage between persons of the same gender is not allowed. But understand, marriage law was devised as a response to fact situation and is not something arbitrary. If persons of the same sex can marry, then why no borthers and sisters, since in each case the partners gain a legal advantage? Or do you accept incest if each gives consent?
 
If you look up marriage in the dictionary, it says “A sacred bond between a man and a woman”. Does it not? Sacred is a religious word, is it not? What happened to separation of church and state?
 
Roamin_Catholic said:
If you look up marriage in the dictionary, it says “A sacred bond between a man and a woman”. Does it not? Sacred is a religious word, is it not? What happened to separation of church and state?
Click to expand...
If yu look up marriage in Black Law Dictionary it says “legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
 
Fine, you’re right, but marriage is still sacred, and originates from the bible. Marriage is religious, and our entire nation was founded on the church not influencing the government. Everyone should be able to receive the same benefits. If the whole argument over Prop 8 was that gays would be “redefining” marriage, then why can’t the state not grant marriage licenses? If they only grant civil unions, to EVERYONE, then everyone would be equal! Then marriage wouldn’t be redefined! Why can’t we do that?
 
Roamin_Catholic said:
Fine, you’re right, but marriage is still sacred, and originates from the bible. Marriage is religious, and our entire nation was founded on the church not influencing the government. Everyone should be able to receive the same benefits. If the whole argument over Prop 8 was that gays would be “redefining” marriage, then why can’t the state not grant marriage licenses? If they only grant civil unions, to EVERYONE, then everyone would be equal! Then marriage wouldn’t be redefined! Why can’t we do that?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church built Western Civilization. The USA is built upon Judeo-Christian values and laws.
 
Okay, you’re not answering my question… Why wouldn’t my proposal work?
 
Corki said:
Well, **there *is ***something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. NARTH may be on the fringe but not because of the nature of homosexuality, rather because of the nature of homosexual activism. Homeopathy is on the fringe of medical science, but it works for many people. The same can be said for reparative therapy.

The indesputable fact is that there are many people who were formerly homosexual who are now living normal, happy lives. Not all, of course but enough. Just because there is not a perfect understand of how their orientation was resolved does not mean that research should not continue.
Click to expand...
As I said, the assumption of wrongness is basically what makes them a fringe organization in mainstream medical circles, since no one can prove scientifically that homosexuality per se is wrong. Reparative therapies are mostly based on this assumption. It’s similar to how some people used to assume lefthandedness as wrong, without any objectivity. And many left handed people have also been led to “re-orient” their assumed “wrong” leanings.
 
Sidekick said:
The understanding of natural law is essential in this debate, and our state already understands it. State all have laws on who can marry and who cannot marry. People do not have the right to may anybody. The state does not allow people to marry relatives, people under the age of 18 to 15 (depending upon the state) with parental consent, people under the age of 12, or people of the same sex (depending upon the state). Why does the state stop these people for getting married? Because it goes against the laws of nature. In all situations, life can not come from these relationships or if life does come it will be in great jeopardy.

Does this mean that all marriages have to produce life? No, because the relationship by nature has the possibility to produce life. Two males and two females can never natural produce life naturally, but a matured male and matured female all have the possibilities to produce life. It is natural for a male and a female to come together sexually, but it is not natural for two people of the same sex to come together sexually.

If homosexuality is unnatural, then why are people born like that? This happens all the time in nature: people being born with unnatural conditions. People with Down syndrome are unnatural because they have an extra chromosome, but that does not like them less of a person. The same is with people who are born with homosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction is unnatural but it does not make them less of a person.
Click to expand...
This is the first time I see Down Syndrome being referred as “unnatural”. I think you just wanted to find a word that would explain both Homosexuality and Down Syndrome… Maybe you just don’t really know what these two phenomena are…
 
cristininha said:
This is the first time I see Down Syndrome being referred as “unnatural”. I think you just wanted to find a word that would explain both Homosexuality and Down Syndrome… Maybe you just don’t really know what these two phenomena are all about…
Click to expand...
Well, not “normal” is the right word. But the condition is referred to as a syndrome. because there are physical earmarks associated with it. Homosexuality was long thought to be a form of mental illness, because there are no obvious physical characteristics to distinguish “gays” from others. Gays may be
“masculine” or “feminine” in manner , voice. or appearance. What distinguishes them is their sexual behavior, unnatural in that it does, and cannot not produce off-spring.
 
RobbyS said:
Well, not “normal” is the right word. But the condition is referred to as a syndrome. because there are physical earmarks associated with it. Homosexuality was long thought to be a form of mental illness, because there are no obvious physical characteristics to distinguish “gays” from others. Gays may be
“masculine” or “feminine” in manner , voice. or appearance. What distinguishes them is their sexual behavior, unnatural in that it does, and cannot not produce off-spring.
Click to expand...
I think “not common” is underused as descriptive vocabulary but appropriate to most cases, instead of “not normal”, which carries a strong stigma, and adds to some people’s assumptions of wrongness.
 
cristininha said:
I think “not common” is an underused descriptive vocabulary and appropriate to most cases, instead of “not normal”, which carries a strong stigma.
Click to expand...
Well, it is not normal in the strictest meaning of the word. At most 10% of the population engages in such behavior, at least on a regular basis.
 
RobbyS said:
Well, it is not normal in the strictest meaning of the word. At most 10% of the population engages in such behavior, at least on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
I understand your approach, but I think “not normal” carries a stigma that is often perceived as meaning something is “wrong”, instead of just “not normal” in the sense of “not in the norm”, this is why I prefer to use “not common”.
 
cristininha said:
I understand your approach, but I think “not normal” carries a stigma that is often perceived as meaning something is “wrong”, instead of just “not normal” in the sense of “not in the norm”, this is why I prefer to use “not common”.
Click to expand...
Well, I believe that something is wrong, It is perverse behavior even if the people doing it are not themselves especially perverse. When I say not normal I mean that the great majority of people do not behave this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top