Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RiverTam51 said:
And the bottom line of those arguing against you is that the above argument is completely correct, but does not imply that forms of sex not involving the “fitting” of the male and female organs are immoral.
Click to expand...
Well, those other acts would not be “sex”. They would be a perversion of the sexual act. Why must these other acts be considered acceptable and legitimate?
 
fix said:
Well, those other acts would not be “sex”. They would be a perversion of the sexual act. Why must these other acts be considered acceptable and legitimate?
Click to expand...
Let’s not quibble over the semantics. You know what I mean by “sex.”
Acceptable: they hurt nobody, or at most, only the participants. To forbid behaviors that do not harm others is pretty much equivalent to totalitarianism.
Legitimate: do you mean legal? Or legitimate in some theological sense?
 
RiverTam51 said:
Let’s not quibble over the semantics. You know what I mean by “sex.”
Click to expand...
It is not semantics. I am pointing out that words have meanings. The marital act is just that - marital. It implies a particular idea. Other acts that attempt to mimic that particular act are not like that act.
Acceptable: they hurt nobody, or at most, only the participants. To forbid behaviors that do not harm others is pretty much equivalent to totalitarianism.
Legitimate: do you mean legal? Or legitimate in some theological sense?
Click to expand...
Legitimate meaning relating to marriage be it civil or not.

As for prohibiting perverted acts that was common up until very recently. I was not aware of any totalitarianism before the 1990s?
 
George_Stegmeir said:
Believe me, you really don’t want to know! - And I AM being charitable!!!
Click to expand...
Yet a good portion of homosexuals claim “it’s not all about the sex”. Consumating a marriage is a huge part of the bonding. I guess for those saying my aforementioned quote, consumation is a “small part” of the marriage bond. Just another reason why all this same sex marriage stuff is convoluted.
 
RiverTam51 said:
Let’s not quibble over the semantics. You know what I mean by “sex.”
Acceptable: they hurt nobody, or at most, only the participants. To forbid behaviors that do not harm others is pretty much equivalent to totalitarianism.
Legitimate: do you mean legal? Or legitimate in some theological sense?
Click to expand...
Then you would be okay with virtual child pornography? No harm there, right?
 
RiverTam51 said:
And the bottom line of those arguing against you is that the above argument is completely correct, but does not imply that forms of sex not involving the “fitting” of the male and female organs are immoral.
Click to expand...
If a lesbian gets raped by a man, her body will act in a heterosexual way by getting pregnant. So although she is homosexual in her personal beliefs, her body is still made for heterosexual intercourse. Can we at least agree that this is true?
 
stewstew03 said:
Then you would be okay with virtual child pornography? No harm there, right?
Click to expand...
The harm there is that a pedophile watching that would be encouraged to rape a child in real life. Although nobody is directly harmed, children would probably be harmed in the long run. For this reason I think it should be illegalized.
If somehow this danger could be eliminated, I would have no objection to allowing pedophiles to watch it.
 
livingwordunity said:
If a lesbian gets raped by a man, her body will act in a heterosexual way by getting pregnant. So although she is homosexual in her personal beliefs, her body is still made for heterosexual intercourse. Can we at least agree that this is true?
Click to expand...
Her body would not respond to him sexually, but a pregnancy could result. So yes, she is still capable of heterosexual reproduction.
 
fix said:
It is not semantics. I am pointing out that words have meanings. The marital act is just that - marital. It implies a particular idea. Other acts that attempt to mimic that particular act are not like that act.
Click to expand...
You can use a different definition from Wikipedia and the Oxford English Dictionary if you wish. Regardless, I mean “sex” as activity involving genital stimulation between two people, and I think it was clear I meant something along these lines.
Legitimate meaning relating to marriage be it civil or not.
Click to expand...
This is very open-ended. You ask “Why must these other acts be considered as …relating to marriage be it civil or not.” There are plenty of ways that noncoital sex can be related to religious and legal marriage; which part of these relationships are you calling into question? I cannot give a good answer to such a vague question.
As for prohibiting perverted acts that was common up until very recently. I was not aware of any totalitarianism before the 1990s?
Click to expand...
A totalitarian government prohibits freedoms when it is not necessary to do so. When gay sex became legal in the US, this was a step away from totalitarianism. Just because all fully totalitarian states so far have been dictatorships, does not mean that it does not occur on smaller scales in democracies.
And the US, not having an official religion nor being anywhere near full totalitarianism, does not seek to tell its citizens what is perverted.
 
EviPolevhia said:
Other then it being icky, which I do not consider a valid reason to prohibit marriage, and the procreation could lead to medical problems…not sure there is one. Sticking your hand in a trash can filled with medical waste and used needles leads to medical problems too. I don’t want people to do that either. I’m not sure it’s illegal to stick your hand in a trash can with used needles though. Heath risk are sometimes legal, sometimes not. Not illegal to smoke yet. So unless you want a nanny nation that outlaws every medically dangerous thing you could do yourself I am not sure I could be for outlawing incest on a medical basis. (I just recommend they not procreate!).
Click to expand...
So what you’re saying is you believe in incestual marriage? Where then do you draw the line? How much will a society be scarred before you’ll find you were so mistaken? Marriage is more about pure emotions or whatever tickles someone fancy, any attempt to transform it to sole infatuation will destroy it purpose.
EviPolevhia said:
As a side note there is no “pro gay ‘marriage’ argument against incest” just like there’s no “pro desegregation argument against incest”. Pro gay marriage is not one large all consuming dogma. Some people who are for gay marriage don’t agree with others who are for gay marriage on certain issues. So in your next post you may want to clean up the question a bit.
Click to expand...
I know there’s no pro gay marriage argument against incestual marriage… That was my point.
 
RiverTam51 said:
The harm there is that a pedophile watching that would be encouraged to rape a child in real life. Although nobody is directly harmed, children would probably be harmed in the long run. For this reason I think it should be illegalized.
If somehow this danger could be eliminated, I would have no objection to allowing pedophiles to watch it.
Click to expand...
So you at least recognize that there should be some community standards in place to prevent a potential future harm. Good. This is a starting point.
 
livingwordunity said:
If a lesbian gets raped by a man, her body will act in a heterosexual way by getting pregnant. So although she is homosexual in her personal beliefs, her body is still made for heterosexual intercourse. Can we at least agree that this is true?
Click to expand...
RiverTam51 said:
Her body would not respond to him sexually, but a pregnancy could result. So yes, she is still capable of heterosexual reproduction.
Click to expand...
A pregnancy is her body’s heterosexual response to the heterosexual union. The human body doesn’t agree with homosexuality, but it takes to heterosexual activity like a fish takes to water.
 
livingwordunity said:
A pregnancy is her body’s heterosexual response to the heterosexual union. The human body doesn’t agree with homosexuality, but it takes to heterosexual activity like a fish takes to water.
Click to expand...
Yes, the human body does take to heterosexual activity. What of it? Straight womens’ bodies respond to rape with pregnancy as well. But this by no means implies that women are meant for rape.
What I have been trying to explain to you is that a body having a built-in response to an event by no means implies that that event “should” happen. And the lack of a response does not mean that it should not happen.
I will try to say this as clearly as possible. We homosexuals do not believe that we have a different gender from straight people. Lesbeans are still women and gays are still men. A gay’s sperm will still fertilize eggs, and a lesbean can still become pregnant. We can still perform coitus, and this may produce children. Gay or lesbean sex does not produce children. But this does not make us heterosexual. What evolution designed our bodies for is not what we desire. For whatever reason, we are attracted to our own gender. There is not a conflict with our bodies in this. Our bodies define our sex, not our attractions. And those of us who are not part of the religions forbidding gay marriage, see no reason that the love we feel towards each other is any different from the love straight people feel towards each other.
 
RiverTam51 said:
Yes, the human body does take to heterosexual activity. What of it? Straight womens’ bodies respond to rape with pregnancy as well. But this by no means implies that women are meant for rape.
What I have been trying to explain to you is that a body having a built-in response to an event by no means implies that that event “should” happen. And the lack of a response does not mean that it should not happen.
I will try to say this as clearly as possible. We homosexuals do not believe that we have a different gender from straight people. Lesbeans are still women and gays are still men. A gay’s sperm will still fertilize eggs, and a lesbean can still become pregnant. We can still perform coitus, and this may produce children. Gay or lesbean sex does not produce children. **But this does not make us heterosexual. What evolution designed our bodies for is not what we desire. ** For whatever reason, we are attracted to our own gender. There is not a conflict with our bodies in this. Our bodies define our sex, not our attractions. And those of us who are not part of the religions forbidding gay marriage, see no reason that the love we feel towards each other is any different from the love straight people feel towards each other.
Click to expand...
River,

Evolution is a theory. Design is a proposition. Desire originates in the mind/body.

I disagree. There is no mind without body. There is no body without mind. There is no action without thought. All thoughts originate in the mind. There is no such thing as desire absent the consent of the mind/body. Consent is what you are proposing as the reason for being as you are. If you do not consent then the body does not act. You desire, you consent to those desires, and you choose to act. Do you want me to accept that you are powerless? If you admit this then it is the tip of the iceberg. To admit powerlessness over one emotion inclines acceptance of powerlessness over other emotions. They put people in prison for that.
 
CopticChristian said:
River,

Evolution is a theory. Design is a proposition. Desire originates in the mind/body.

I disagree. There is no mind without body. There is no body without mind. There is no action without thought. All thoughts originate in the mind. There is no such thing as desire absent the consent of the mind/body. Consent is what you are proposing as the reason for being as you are. If you do not consent then the body does not act. You desire, you consent to those desires, and you choose to act. Do you want me to accept that you are powerless? If you admit this then it is the tip of the iceberg. To admit powerlessness over one emotion inclines acceptance of powerlessness over other emotions. They put people in prison for that.
Click to expand...
I should have clarified. “There is not conflict between the mind and the structure of the genitalia” would have been a better way of putting it.
The rest of your argument is a straw man. One chooses to fulfill desires or not to, but has little control over whether to feel the desires at all.
And I frankly have no desire to argue against someone who does not also believe in evolution. It is a theory, yes, but anyone who does not believe it probably does not have a good enough understanding of modern biology to argue about its role in homosexuality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top