How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[Rau]

A member of the human species can be homosexual (sexually attracted exclusively to the same sex), heterosexual (sexually attracted exclusively to the opposite sex), bisexual (sexually attracted to both sexes) or asexual (not sexually attracted to anything). Or a member of the human species could be attracted to a non-human object or a part of a human (a foot fetish for example). The same goes for many other living species besides the human species. Only if you are talking about the the human species in some sort of idealized, abstract way which does not correspond to what actually exists in our world, can you say that “the human species is heterosexual.”

A member may experience all those inclinations, and many other attributes.

But we would not assert that “the human species” has binary vision, or no vision, hearing or no hearing… Limbs with 5 digits each, or…, or…, A capacity to learn abstract ideas, or not,…

 

[Thorolfr]

A member may experience all those inclinations, and many other attributes.

But we would not assert that “the human species” has binary vision, or no vision, hearing or no hearing… Limbs with 5 digits each, or…, or…, A capacity to learn abstract ideas, or not,…

So then why say, “the human species is heterosexual” when some of it members are not? Unless all members of the human species have a certain attribute, then such statements are not true and are not very helpful. On the other hand, the statement, “the human species has a soul” would be appropriate since we assume that all members of the human species have souls.

 

[Rau]

So then why say, “the human species is heterosexual” when some of it members are not? Unless all members of the human species have a certain attribute, then such statements are not true and are not very helpful. On the other hand, the statement, “the human species has a soul” would be appropriate since we assume that all members of the human species have souls.

Revisionism gone mad! Rewite all the textbooks! Why say anything characteristic of the human species unless every member exemplifies it?

 

[Thorolfr]

Revisionism gone mad! Rewite all the textbooks!

Give me a quote from a standard modern textbook that says, “the human species is heterosexual.” That’s like saying, “the human species has brown hair.”

 

[Rau]

Give me a quote from a standard modern textbook that says, “the human species is heterosexual.” That’s like saying, “the human species has brown hair.”

“Modern”? the subject is not modern Thor.

As did Zoltan earlier, I think you’re engaged in a word game. The species comes in two sexes and proliferates itself by that means. That is objectively clear.

Some individuals experience SSA, despite their body. “Modern” language does not apply the word heterosexual to them, because word usage has changed. We know this Thor. And it generally is unwilling to identify the exceptional behaviour, and the driving force of it, as abnormal. Possibly natural, but abnormal. Understandably, such will likely cause offence, or worse. But I address the matter objectively, with persons willing and able to engage with such debate. I see SSA as abnormal, a divergence, incongruous with the body.

Gender dysphoria is also an incongruity, where the body and the mind are at odds. It is different though in that it causes everyone who experiences it a level of discomfort. It is also an abnormality, and no one disputes that.

 

[Thorolfr]

But I address the matter objectively, with persons willing and able to engage with such debate. I see SSA as abnormal, a divergence, incongruous with the body.

At least in the second sentence, you admit that this is only your opinion and is therefore subjective, just as it is my opinion that SSA is not abnormal and is also subjective. Something that is objective is considered to represent facts, but neither of our opinions can be proven to be a fact since there is not sufficient incontrovertible data to prove either.

 

[Rau]

At least in the second sentence, you admit that this is only your opinion and is therefore subjective, just as it is my opinion that SSA is not abnormal and is also subjective. Something that is objective is considered to represent facts, but neither of our opinions can be proven to be a fact since there is not sufficient incontrovertible data to prove either.

The incongruity seems to be objective. I readily agree normal and natural are messy words and one might easily hold a different understanding of them from another.

 

[St_Redemption]

I think people should be free to marry whomever they want. I also think people should be able to choose their religion, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand how important sepreration of Church and state is guys. And yes, I do think that gay marriage is a sin. But the government has no business interfering with people in this manner.

 

[Rau]

I think people should be free to marry whomever they want. I also think people should be able to choose their religion, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand how important sepreration of Church and state is guys. And yes, I do think that gay marriage is a sin. But the government has no business interfering with people in this manner.

The Goverment is not interfering. You are advovating for the government to take particular steps, to create something not previously there. You don’t explain why.

 

[St_Redemption]

The Goverment is not interfering. You are advovating for the government to take particular steps, to create something not previously there. You don’t explain why.

The government interfered when it created the law. Im asking for its retraction;

 

[Rau]

The government interfered when it created the law. Im asking for its retraction;

So…no State recognition of the obligations of spouses to each other or to children?

 

[Thorolfr]

So…no State recognition of the obligations of spouses to each other or to children?

Don’t parents still have obligations to their children even if they are not married? That’s why the state often goes after a parent, usually the father, for child support even if he is not married to the mother.

 

[Rau]

Don’t parents still have obligations to their children even if they are not married? That’s why the state often goes after a parent, usually the father, for child support even if he is not married to the mother.

Yes true - and even to the other spouse. But that’s because the relationship is deemed to be what was not formalised. I don’t understand what the other poster is suggesting by State retracting the law (I assume he means the Marriage law).

 

[St_Redemption]

Yes true - and even to the other spouse. But that’s because the relationship is deemed to be what was not formalised. I don’t understand what the other poster is suggesting by State retracting the law (I assume he means the Marriage law).

What I am saying is that gay marriage should be legal but separate from the Church. I’m far less interested in how the governmental law came into effect/or what the current law even is for that matter.

 

[St_Redemption]

I don’t see any reason why the government should interfere with our lives in this manner. I don’t believe this is what the Good Lord wants either. He wants us to freely choose. And even a gay and married couple, I would pray for, and hope for their conversion obviously. But people must be free to choose. Unless, of course, harm is brought to society by their actions.

I suppose one could argue that harm is brought to societies through gay marriage in that it helps to propogate Luciferian agenda, if you wanted, but then again I do not feel that we have to impose these sorts of things on non-believers against their own wills.

 

[Rau]

I don’t see any reason why the government should interfere with our lives in this manner. I don’t believe this is what the Good Lord wants either. He wants us to freely choose. And even a gay and married couple, I would pray for, and hope for their conversion obviously. But people must be free to choose. Unless, of course, harm is brought to society by their actions.

I suppose one could argue that harm is brought to societies through gay marriage in that it helps to propogate Luciferian agenda, if you wanted, but then again I do not feel that we have to impose these sorts of things on non-believers against their own wills.

Goverment does not need to create accommodation for every want, just so someone can choose it!

 

[jmcrae]

Your statement above is nonsensical. Homosexual, by definition, means “sexually attracted to people of the same sex,” and “heterosexual” means “sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.”

Not necessarily. Attraction isn’t required for heterosexual marriage to be both valid and sacramental. The notion of “falling in love” is of very recent construction - a Victorian-era idea. Therefore, a heterosexual man is simply a man who is physically equipped to marry a woman and beget children with her, as in an arranged marriage or a marriage of convenience.

Attraction need not enter into it at all. Duty to family can be sufficient.

 

[St_Redemption]

Goverment does not need to create accommodation for every want, just so someone can choose it!

I don’t know how you possibly could draw from what I am saying that I feel that the government should make everything legal. Since creating an accommodation for every want would necessitate the legalization of everything.

From my thought that I feel that the government should legalize gay marriage, you draw the conclusion that I feel that nothing should be illegal apparently.

Seems legit.

 

[Rau]

I don’t know how you possibly could draw from what I am saying that I feel that the government should make everything legal. Since creating an accommodation for every want would necessitate the legalization of everything.

From my thought that I feel that the government should legalize gay marriage, you draw the conclusion that I feel that nothing should be illegal apparently.

Seems legit.

You equate the history / record of governments to “fail to accommodate same sex marriage” with “government interference” (see your posts #305 and #312).

That makes no sense to me.

Marriage has been understood to be the sexual union of a man and a woman, arising from the nature of ‘man’, to form natural family units and the basis through which the community expands itself (via children).

If you wish to change the meaning of marriage - you are free to argue for that. The government (reflecting, one assumes, a democratic majority decision) declining to accede to your wish is NOT interference.

If/when the majority demand marriage be redefined, failure of the government to act can reasonably characterised as frustrating the will of the people. And dissenters will remain free to argue for change.

 

[Thorolfr]

Not necessarily. Attraction isn’t required for heterosexual marriage to be both valid and sacramental. The notion of “falling in love” is of very recent construction - a Victorian-era idea. Therefore, a heterosexual man is simply a man who is physically equipped to marry a woman and beget children with her, as in an arranged marriage or a marriage of convenience.

Attraction need not enter into it at all. Duty to family can be sufficient.

The word “heterosexual” is defined in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) as “sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.” The word “homosexual” is defined in the dictionary as “sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” That is what the words “heterosexual” and “homosexual” mean and those meanings have to do with attraction, not physical equipment. Maybe you can find a different word that has to do with physical equipment such as the word “sex”, one of the meanings of which is: “either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures”