Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[rlg94086]

My argument for gay rights contains strong passion, but my reasons are LOGICAL. Two people really love each other. These people are both consenting adults, and they aren’t related, so their union will not hurt anyone. So that rules out incest and pedophilia and polygamy. Therefore, I support it this union.

Logical…but based on personal opinion. It can easily be argued, logically, that the age of consent is too high (pedophilia) that multiple partners doesn’t hurt anyone (polygamy) and that two brothers marrying each other is not hurting anyone (incest).

In fact, my brother married a woman who claimed to be bisexual and had a woman move in with them. How would you, logically, argue that their “family unit” is hurting anyone? How would you, logically, argue that two brothers marrying each other is hurting anyone? What’s wrong with lowering the “age of consent” to puberty? Isn’t 18 an arbitrary number? Maybe we should raise it to 25.

Your emotion-based arguments aren’t any more “logical” than the emotion-based arguments of someone who just thinks that gay relationships are “icky.”

 

[Dale_M]

The US Constitution also doesn’t require marriage to be of two consenting humans.

Your point is moot.

No, my point is simply that the US Constitution is silent when it comes to the conditions of marriage. Perhaps that means that the US Congress needs to take action. I dunno.

 

[rlg94086]

erm… maybe. But it really is an interpretation on your part. And certainly not part of the law or judicial decision.

I see. And, the interpretation on the part of people who wish to define marriage as “two consenting adults” is more valid because…? Do tell.

 

[exoflare]

Gay “marriages” have no value to society. If two people of the same sex wish to have a “marriage” ceremony, they can do so today. There is nothing stopping them. However, there is absolutely no reason for society to put it on the same level with a heterosexual union. The procreative nature of marriage is what brings the most value to society - the bearing and raising of children. It makes logical sense for our government to endorse and encourage what is best for society. It makes no sense to endorse something of no value.

Thanks, you nailed it. This is the real core of the issue here. The uproar was never about any “right to marriage” in the first place, or “equal treatment” which people already have, but about the right to have government pretend that mutual-masturbation pacts carry some kind of imaginary benefit to society.

 

[scipio337]

Yes I would. As strongly as I would favor it if the Church were doing that same thing with blacks.

Goodbye free exercise, and 1st amendment.

That’s the whole problem of making the false analogy between race and behavior.

In other words, your view of “civil rights” enables religious persecution.

Bon fait!

 

[rapunzel77]

Oh, and one other thing, I find it appalling that the gay rights activists like to cite the civil rights movement as a precedent. I know that there are some African-Americans who are disgusted with the comparison since they are not the same at all. The Civil Rights movement was necessary because it was striving to correct a grave injustice again our fellow brothers and sisters who are a different race. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with behavior. The “gay” rights movement is all about behavior. The two are NOT nor will they EVER be equal.

 

[blacktiger057]

Really? And these arguments are different than the arguments against homosexuality?

Yeah. Gays cannot conceive children, so no birth defects can occur. A gay is not the same thing as a pedophile, so child rape does not occur.

Marriage has two aspects, the unitive and the genitive. Both heterosexual and homosexual marriage have the unitive aspect. I acknowledge, and I think most Catholics will, that there is a real, meaningful desire to unite with another in the desire for homosexual “marriage”. However, homosexual marriage lacks the genitive aspect. Homosexual marriages are not ordered toward procreation. It is not in its nature to produce and raise children. Now, certainly there are heterosexual couples that are unable to procreate, such as through infertility or impotence. But this particular defect does not change the nature of the relationship. In the absence of defect, it would produce children. It is in the nature of the heterosexual marriage to produce children. For example, were a man to be impotent, but a cure for impotency was found, he would be able to procreate. But this is a biological and metaphysical impossibility with homosexual unions.

Note that there is not a single reference to religion in this argument. This is a purely philosophical argument that appeals to natural ends. Read some Aristotle and Aquinas and you will see that things have natural ends, goals if you will, towards which they are ordered. Only men and women together are ordered towards procreation. This is never the case with homosexual relationships.

I was looking for a logical argument, not philosophical. But thank you for reposting because you are right, I completely missed this post. This thread is very busy!

You say that marriage is for procreation. It logically follows that infertile people should not be allowed to get married, since they apparently have no value to society in your eyes, as they cannot provide children. So that is illogical as well. Marriage is about love, sometimes about children. Plus, the world does not need more children. Gays would adopt the millions of children that are in orphanages. Unless you actually would agree that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married, in which case I’d end this discussion with you now.

 

[rlg94086]

No, my point is simply that the US Constitution is silent when it comes to the conditions of marriage. Perhaps that means that the US Congress needs to take action. I dunno.

Which is why there is nothing unconstitutional about limiting it to a man and a woman. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[blacktiger057]

Goodbye free exercise, and 1st amendment.

That’s the whole problem of making the false analogy between race and behavior.

In other words, your view of “civil rights” enables religious persecution.

Bon fait!

Only when religion violates civil rights.

 

[rapunzel77]

Only when religion violates civil rights.

You can apparently make anything a “civil” right but that doesn’t make it correct. You don’t care about the constitution or the rights of anyone else, right? At its heart, the "gay"rights movement is very selfish and narcissistic which is not good for society at all.

 

[scipio337]

Only when religion violates civil rights.

But you’re creating a civil right based on a behavior. Not on any ethnic, religious, racial, etc, criterea.

And what of the civil rights pertaining to free excersise?

I can’t read anything from any of your post the least bit respective towards religious views (unless they be Wiccan), so I can’t say I’m surprised.

 

[blacktiger057]

Logical…but based on personal opinion. It can easily be argued, logically, that the age of consent is too high (pedophilia) that multiple partners doesn’t hurt anyone (polygamy) and that two brothers marrying each other is not hurting anyone (incest).

In fact, my brother married a woman who claimed to be bisexual and had a woman move in with them. How would you, logically, argue that their “family unit” is hurting anyone? How would you, logically, argue that two brothers marrying each other is hurting anyone? What’s wrong with lowering the “age of consent” to puberty? Isn’t 18 an arbitrary number? Maybe we should raise it to 25.

Your emotion-based arguments aren’t any more “logical” than the emotion-based arguments of someone who just thinks that gay relationships are “icky.”

OMG! FOR THE LAST TIME I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PEDOPHILIA, INCEST, OR POLYGAMY ETC ETC SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THOSE AND LETS TALK ABOUT GAYS!

No, I would not argue that your brother’s family unit isn’t hurting anyone. I’m arguing for gay marriage, NOT ANYTHING ELSE. Why is it everytime I post about why gay marriage is right people respond to it with a whole post on why pedophilia and incest and polygamy is wrong? Let’s stop avoiding the real issue. I refuse to respond to posts like this in the future.

 

[Dale_M]

Seriously? You don’t see how homosexual sex is contrary to evolution? Do you understand what is involved in the propagation of species?

Whoa.

That is quite a claim you are making. Can you say, for sure, that homosexuality doesn’t promote the propagation of the species? Reasonably, it could be argued that non-reproductive individuals (as happens in some animal species) promotes the survival of children by providing an extra set of eyes and means of resources. This additional surplus could be expected to aid survival of offspring, even if the homosexual individuals did not provide offspring of their own.

 

[Suudy]

Thank you for clarifying. Sex is used for procreation. But another one of it’s purposes is for pleasure.

But you can’t separate the two. It isn’t for procreation or pleasure. It is for both procreation and pleasure. And gay “sex” can only be pleasurable, not procreative.

But marriage should not be based solely on sex, and neither should your argument on gay marriage.

It isn’t based solely on sex. It has to be both unitive and genitive. A marriage only for children, but lacking any unitive nature, is just as disordered as marriage only for love and for no children. It has to have both.

But note that sex is an essential aspect. Marriage that is not open to procreation is disordered.

Give me a logical reason on how gay marriage harms society.

I did. I showed that it is disordered. Homosexual “marriage” is not ordered towards procreation, and being so disordered, is harmful to society. All disordered actions are harmful to society. Alcoholism is disordered, and is harmful to society. Kleptomania is disordered, and is harmful to society. Sexual addiction is disordered, and harmful to society. The very nature of it being disordered is the problem.

 

[blacktiger057]

But you’re creating a civil right based on a behavior. Not on any ethnic, religious, racial, etc, criterea.

And what of the civil rights pertaining to free excersise?

I can’t read anything from any of your post the least bit respective towards religious views (unless they be Wiccan), so I can’t say I’m surprised.

I am not Wiccan. You could then argue that if someone said it was in their religion to murder, that’d be protected by the consitution.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Your emotion-based arguments aren’t any more “logical” than the emotion-based arguments of someone who just thinks that gay relationships are “icky.”

That’s me. Here are all these posts looking for “logical” arguments for and against, and I think, “Who gives a damn?” Homosexual relationships seem slimy and icky to me, and I don’t care about the logic on either side of the argument. I’m satisfied with the emotional.

But, do have at it. It makes for good intellectual exercise.

 

[blacktiger057]

But you can’t separate the two. It isn’t for procreation or pleasure. It is for both procreation and pleasure. And gay “sex” can only be pleasurable, not procreative.

It isn’t based solely on sex. It has to be both unitive and genitive. A marriage only for children, but lacking any unitive nature, is just as disordered as marriage only for love and for no children. It has to have both.

But note that sex is an essential aspect. Marriage that is not open to procreation is disordered.

I did. I showed that it is disordered. Homosexual “marriage” is not ordered towards procreation, and being so disordered, is harmful to society. All disordered actions are harmful to society. Alcoholism is disordered, and is harmful to society. Kleptomania is disordered, and is harmful to society. Sexual addiction is disordered, and harmful to society. The very nature of it being disordered is the problem.

You can separate the two. It’s called condoms.

Sex is essential? So what if two old people who can’t have sex get married? Is their marriage invalid because it has no sex in it?

Why is homosexuality disordered? You have not responded to that. And would you deny the right for an infertile women to marry, since that is not a marriage for procreation? If you would, you’d be sick imo, but then your argument would hold.

 

[rlg94086]

OMG! FOR THE LAST TIME I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PEDOPHILIA, INCEST, OR POLYGAMY ETC ETC SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THOSE AND LETS TALK ABOUT GAYS!

No, I would not argue that your brother’s family unit isn’t hurting anyone. I’m arguing for gay marriage, NOT ANYTHING ELSE. Why is it everytime I post about why gay marriage is right people respond to it with a whole post on why pedophilia and incest and polygamy is wrong? Let’s stop avoiding the real issue. I refuse to respond to posts like this in the future.

Um…you mentioned all three in the post I replied to.

If you can’t logically answer my questions, then you need to stop claiming to have a logical argument. You don’t.

 

[Dale_M]

Gay “marriages” have no value to society.

Really?

So are you saying that a man and woman, both beyond reproductive years, should be forbidden to marry?

Or a couple, one of whom is infertile, should be denied marriage? Or, maybe, after they marry and it turns out that one is infertile, that the government should dissolve their marriage?

 

[rlg94086]

Whoa.

That is quite a claim you are making. Can you say, for sure, that homosexuality doesn’t promote the propagation of the species? Reasonably, it could be argued that non-reproductive individuals (as happens in some animal species) promotes the survival of children by providing an extra set of eyes and means of resources. This additional surplus could be expected to aid survival of offspring, even if the homosexual individuals did not provide offspring of their own.

Please show a study that supplies such a link. It sounds like you’ve been reading fantasy novels rather than science. There is no evidence that homosexuality evolved in order to supply “additional surplus” for the survival of children.

It is obtuse to believe that homosexuality is anything but an abnormality in a species.