Same-sex marraige: honestly, what is the point?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonathan_hili
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jonathan_hili said:
I don’t see why not. Heterosexual marriage is not by its very nature infertile; it just happens to be that way at certain periods (e.g. during menopause or when a woman is having her period) or in certain exceptions. However, same-sex marriage is by its very nature infertile. There are no circumstances where a two persons of the same sex can produce children. This makes the union qualitatively different.
Click to expand...
I’m new to this…but I assume you don’t consider in-vitro fertilization or adoption as the same outcome…i.e. children for parents? Also, in terms of women, they are fertile and with donated sperm can conceive.

So I must conclude that the assumption here is that only when pregnancy comes from a man and a woman via regular sex, that all the conditions are met?

OK, but it would seem that for many, many gay couples who choose never to have kids that the issue is being able to legally share in all that they do, make, evolve as a team
 
bjryman said:
Also, in terms of women, they are fertile and with donated sperm can conceive.
Click to expand...
This is my concern, for homosexuals in a homosexual union, to try and have their own children is to bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their mother or father, not because it will benefit the child, but because it will selfishly benefit themselves.

Also, when people advocate same sex marriage, they are not just advocating some superficial homosexual union (not the union you see), they are advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality, the sexuality shared through such intimacy and it is physical impossible for homosexuals to have sexual relations in a moral and ordered way, thus it lead to only one logical outcome which is to advocate same sex marriage is to advocate sexual immorality, to advocate such sexual immorality as moral and an encouraged variant of sexuality.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
When same sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states every place of worship will maintain their right to deny marriage to any couple they wish. I think conservative who oppose same sex marriage based on religious beliefs can support same sex marriage based on any equal rights position. Same sex marriage does not physically hurt anyone. When the church involves itself in the abortion debate and tells the congregation how to vote on the issue or what political action to take it is justified. Abortion is a life issue unlike same sex marriage. I also want to note that the church forbids divorce but the church does not care to legislate this position I think the Catholic church and other faiths have over reached on same sex marriage. We have separation of church and state and equal right is this country.
 
David3101 said:
When same sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states every place of worship will maintain their right to deny marriage to any couple they wish. I think conservative who oppose same sex marriage based on religious beliefs can support same sex marriage based on any equal rights position. Same sex marriage does not physically hurt anyone. When the church involves itself in the abortion debate and tells the congregation how to vote on the issue or what political action to take it is justified. Abortion is a life issue unlike same sex marriage. I also want to note that the church forbids divorce but the church does not care to legislate this position I think the Catholic church and other faiths have over reached on same sex marriage. We have separation of church and state and equal right is this country.
Click to expand...
The only reason I dot agree with you is that I don’t want it to end up like this. lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages. If memory serves Denmark was the first to allow homosexual marriage. I don’t want the US to end up like that.
 
kanrok said:
Why is it so hard to get a simple answer to a simple question?

Care to take a whack at it?

What benefit is there to society by promoting sodomy?
Click to expand...
For crying out loud… What is your obsession with anal sex? I, for one, previously explained that this question is seriously flawed. It’s bizarre, as well, that you’ve latched onto this one sexual act – as though it’s the only homosexual act and heterosexuals never engage in it. Again, seriously flawed premises. Why would a seriously flawed question deserve an answer?
 
gracepoole said:
For crying out loud… What is your obsession with anal sex? I, for one, previously explained that this question is seriously flawed. It’s bizarre, as well, that you’ve latched onto this one sexual act – as though it’s the only homosexual act and heterosexuals never engage in it. Again, seriously flawed premises. Why would a seriously flawed question deserve an answer?
Click to expand...
It’s because many people are ignoring the reality of homosexuality, they are ignoring the fact that it is physically impossible for homosexuals to have sexual relations in a moral and ordered way, thus what ever sexual intimacy they share is gravely disordered and immoral.

Too many people are trying to pretend that homosexuality is just an orientation, they are trying to pretend that it’s just a subjective state of mind rather than an objective physical reality and I question anyone’s sexual morality who claim that the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral and should be an embraced variant of sexuality.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
gracepoole said:
For crying out loud… What is your obsession with anal sex? I, for one, previously explained that this question is seriously flawed. It’s bizarre, as well, that you’ve latched onto this one sexual act – as though it’s the only homosexual act and heterosexuals never engage in it. Again, seriously flawed premises. Why would a seriously flawed question deserve an answer?
Click to expand...
It’s one thing to say that a question is “seriously flawed.” It’s quite another to articulate why it s “flawed.” You’ve shown absolutely no desire to answer this straight forward question honestly. Homosexual marriage enshrines sodomy. To argue otherwise is nonsensical. One more time. What interest does society have in promoting sodomy? Once again, I’ll wait. I have a feeling that ill be waiting a good long time.
 
kanrok said:
It’s one thing to say that a question is “seriously flawed.” It’s quite another to articulate why it s “flawed.” You’ve shown absolutely no desire to answer this straight forward question honestly. Homosexual marriage enshrines sodomy. To argue otherwise is nonsensical. One more time. What interest does society have in promoting sodomy? Once again, I’ll wait. I have a feeling that ill be waiting a good long time.
Click to expand...
Homosexual marriage between two women enshrines sodomy?
 
Oh, dear me. I didn’t realize the OED was necessary to decipher your use of the term. In that case, I’m not sure why people are so resistant to recognizing the full benefit of marriage to society.
 
gracepoole said:
Oh, dear me. I didn’t realize the OED was necessary to decipher your use of the term. In that case, I’m not sure why people are so resistant to recognizing the full benefit of marriage to society.
Click to expand...
It’s not my use of the term. It is the definition.

Now that we have that established, care to finally answer the question, or are you going to continue to avoid the truth?

I’m guessing you’ll choose “avoid the truth.”
 
kanrok said:
It’s not my use of the term. It is the definition.

Now that we have that established, care to finally answer the question, or are you going to continue to avoid the truth?
Click to expand...
First, it is a definition. Second, there isn’t some great “gotcha” moment here, I’m afraid. Heterosexual marriage (even involving those who are infertile) benefits society in a multitude of ways – homosexual marriage does the same. I assume you can identify the benefits of heterosexual marriage without my assistance.
 
gracepoole said:
First, it is a definition. Second, there isn’t some great “gotcha” moment here, I’m afraid. Heterosexual marriage (even involving those who are infertile) benefits society in a multitude of ways – homosexual marriage does the same. I assume you can identify the benefits of heterosexual marriage without my assistance.
Click to expand...
If you say so.

I fully appreciate the benefits of authentic marriage.

I see no benefiit to society in promoting sodomy. Zero.

What benefit do you see to society in promoting sodomy?

You still have not answered the question.
 
jwinch2 said:
illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

The goal, is the destruction of marriage all together. Go back and look at the things pushed for over the past 75 years or so. Then ask your self, “at what point did they stop, and were satisfied?” The answer will be that they were never satisfied, and they never stop pushing.

*“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”*
Click to expand...
👍
 
JimG said:
Well, that’s a possibility. But the greater possibility is that any number of business get run out of business for refusing to acquiesce to the government religion of gay marriage. There will be lawsuits, charges of ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ merely for stating Catholic teaching.

But that’s not the worst part. It’s quite likely that marriage itself, as an institution will come to be seen as not meaning much, and just decline, as in Sweden, where fewer people get married since the advent of gay marriage. After all, what’s the point? If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing.

And when marriage means nothing, families also have less meaning. The cease to be the glue that holds civilization together. Children are unanchored. The whole society gradually crumbles.
Click to expand...
This deserves to be highlighted and repeated. This is the crux of it, and we see it happening elsewhere already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top