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

[Slavonic]

They have no business acting as if they were married so I see no reason for the issue.

Frankly, they don’t care how you see it. And that wasn’t the point of my post.

They aren’t ignorant. Some of them even do it. Getting the privileges is secondary to shoving it in the face of religious people who think that homosexual acts are a sin.

Not everything is about you.

visitatin

inheritance

What else do you want?

Then why was Edie Windsor forced to pay the inheritance tax after her wife died?

 

[JimG]

Unlike the civil rights movement, the push for gay marriage has always been a top down push from the elites.

Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.

 

[josh987654321]

.

Do you support same sex marriage Slavonic?

May I ask, do you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Slavonic]

Yes, I support same sex marriage.

As for equivalence, no such comparisons are needed. Human sexuality simply has natural variations. Some girls like boys. Some boys like boys. Just let it be.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Yes, I support same sex marriage.

As for equivalence, no such comparisons are needed. Human sexuality simply has natural variations. Some girls like boys. Some boys like boys. Just let it be.

When we let things that we are not naturally ordered for “just be”, disastrous.consequences are sure to follow.

Try eating cardboard instead of food and see if you can survive that way with an “alternate form of living”, it wont turn out good I promise!

 

[BellsMom]

My main point, though, is to try to show that government legalisation of same-sex marriage is senseless or pointless because no practical, social purpose is achieved by it.

This is from an article by Ted Olson. I think it addresses your point that gay marriage has no social purpose (which I interpret to mean benefit).

At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

 

[josh987654321]

Yes, I support same sex marriage.

As for equivalence, no such comparisons are needed. Human sexuality simply has natural variations. Some girls like boys. Some boys like boys. Just let it be.

And some men like boys and some humans like animals and some men like more than one woman and some men like their own kin, do we let this be? surely comparisons are needed aren’t they?

Surely it’s more than sexual orientation that sways your decision on same sex marriage isn’t it?

God Bless.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Monkey1976]

This is from an article by Ted Olson. I think it addresses your point that gay marriage has no social purpose (which I interpret to mean benefit).

thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

Exactly which of these “benefits” requires legal recognition and is impossible without it?

 

[jonathan_hili]

This is from an article by Ted Olson. I think it addresses your point that gay marriage has no social purpose (which I interpret to mean benefit).

thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

Hi Bells Mom, thanks for that! An interesting read.

I wasn’t arguing that same-sex “marriage” has no social purpose but that there is no purpose for the government to legalise or officialise such an institution; they might as well legalise boyfriend and girlfriend, or groom and best man.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Yes, I support same sex marriage.

As for equivalence, no such comparisons are needed. Human sexuality simply has natural variations. Some girls like boys. Some boys like boys. Just let it be.

That’s quite true, Slavonic, that human sexual does have natural variations. But it doesn’t follow that they are healthy or even - for a Christian, which I presume you are - divinely ordained variations.

As a comparison, human emotions have natural variations. We all feel great desires for hatred, revenge, lust, gluttony, pride, and so on. They are quite natural to humans. But does it then follow that we should pursue them and that they are healthy and divinely desired for us?

I think the issue with same-sex “marriage” or even intimate, sexual same-sex relationships is not whether they are natural (although physiologically, I really can’t see how one could argue that men and men go together) but whether they are morally and socially good relationships.

 

[Midwest88]

As for equivalence, no such comparisons are needed. Human sexuality simply has natural variations. Some girls like boys. Some boys like boys. Just let it be.

Somehow I feel this “let’s not compare” is a get out of jail for free card. It also is devoid of any honest intellectual thinking for the sake of argument.

“Just let it be.” You’re kidding right?

 

[Slavonic]

And some men like boys and some humans like animals and some men like more than one woman and some men like their own kin, do we let this be? surely comparisons are needed aren’t they?

Surely it’s more than sexual orientation that sways your decision on same sex marriage isn’t it?

Sexual orientation refers to gender, specifically a person’s romantic feelings and attraction to one or both genders. Pedophilia and bestiality have no place in the discussion. Nor do incest and polyamory.

I think the issue with same-sex “marriage” or even intimate, sexual same-sex relationships is not whether they are natural (although physiologically, I really can’t see how one could argue that men and men go together) but whether they are morally and socially good relationships.

Well, they’re certainly socially good for the individuals in the relationship. Are they not part of society?

Somehow I feel this “let’s not compare” is a get out of jail for free card. It also is devoid of any honest intellectual thinking for the sake of argument.

“Just let it be.” You’re kidding right?

But why do we need to compare? It is completely intellectually honest to strip away preconceived notions of same-sex pairings and gay and lesbian individuals and just see them as regular people who who want to find a person to share their life with. It’s intellectually honest to stop making moral judgments on large swaths of people, and instead look at the character of individuals. It’s really worth reconsidering issues and approaching them from another direction and seeing that, at a fundamental level, gay and straight people are not that different. There’s no point in making Culture War-esque arguments on the relative value of different relationships and instead just see them as something that is.

 

[fix]

Sexual orientation refers to gender, specifically a person’s romantic feelings and attraction to one or both genders. Pedophilia and bestiality have no place in the discussion. Nor do incest and polyamory.

Well, they’re certainly socially good for the individuals in the relationship. Are they not part of society?

But why do we need to compare? It is completely intellectually honest to strip away preconceived notions of same-sex pairings and gay and lesbian individuals and just see them as regular people who who want to find a person to share their life with. It’s intellectually honest to stop making moral judgments on large swaths of people, and instead look at the character of individuals. It’s really worth reconsidering issues and approaching them from another direction and seeing that, at a fundamental level, gay and straight people are not that different. There’s no point in making Culture War-esque arguments on the relative value of different relationships and instead just see them as something that is.

There is no point in comparing heterosexual desire with homosexual desire. It is disingenuous. One is natural and ordered corrected and one is unnatural and disordered.

 

[josh987654321]

Sexual orientation refers to gender, specifically a person’s romantic feelings and attraction to one or both genders. Pedophilia and bestiality have no place in the discussion. Nor do incest and polygamy.

Sexual orientation doesn’t refer to gender, If I decide I’m a dolphin, does that make me one? should I act like a dolphin? I’m pretty sure id drown if I tried that.

Even if they are homosexual by sexual orientation, we all still remain physically heterosexual by nature, by design.

Sexual orientation is just a model that allows you to pretend that homosexuality is a subjective state-of-mind rather than an objective physical reality.

It is the objective physical reality of homosexuality that is immoral, just like it’s the objective physical reality of paedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy that makes them so immoral.

So if you base your decision on homosexuals desires, on their sexual orientation, than that would also include paedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy, **because these people likewise did not choose their sexual orientation either. **

However we don’t accept these other sexual orientations, because we see that it is not just a subjective state-of-mind, it’s the objective physical reality that we object to.

Thus, why do you ignore the physical reality of homosexuality when advocating same sex marriage?

The argument for advocating same sex marriage should be irrelevant of sexual orientation, there is not one person who doesn’t have immoral sexual desires, not one. Just because we desire something doesn’t make it right, you should be considering the morality of the act rather than the morality of the desire.

Should we all just recklessly give into our every desires, throw our hand up in the air and say “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?” If I desire something that’s immoral more than most others, does that make the act no longer immoral because of how much I desire it? Of course not.

If I desire something enough, will that change the morality of the act? If not, than why are desires (sexual orientation) swaying your decision on same sex marriage?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

But why do we need to compare?

Why would we not need to compare when you are the one arguing for equality? to not compare and argue for equality is foolish, because we have to decide if they are equal when equating them in certain aspects… especially marriage.

It is completely intellectually honest to strip away preconceived notions of same-sex pairings and gay and lesbian individuals and just see them as regular people who who want to find a person to share their life with.

Why can’t you see paedophiles, polygamists and incestuous individuals as regular people who just want to find a person to share their life with? obviously because it’s not just any person(s) they want to share their life with. It’s a particular person(s) that determines the morality of the relationship and thus why we do not accept them as something that is.

It’s intellectually honest to stop making moral judgments on large swaths of people, and instead look at the character of individuals. It’s really worth reconsidering issues and approaching them from another direction and seeing that, at a fundamental level, gay and straight people are not that different.

No!, Fundamentally, Gay and Straight people are no different! even while engaging in homosexual acts, they still remain physically heterosexual by nature, by design.

The physical reality means that Gay and Straight people are no different to one another, it’s only the subjective state-of-mind (sexual orientation) that we differ, not the sexual acts, so why are you ignoring the difference in the sexual acts?

There’s no point in making Culture War-esque arguments on the relative value of different relationships and instead just see them as something that is.

Than what’s wrong with Paedophilia and Bestiality? these people, likewise did not choose their sexual orientation, but obviously we do not accept these things as just “something that is.”

Now in saying all of this, I am not relating the sexual acts of homosexuality to things like paedophilia, I’m only relating the sexual orientation to those things, thus why I wouldn’t criminalise sodomy, but such a union is certainly not a marriage. Thus it is immoral to advocate that it is one.

Same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it publicly recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, in which obviously it isn’t. To think that would mean to ignore the basic human anatomy of men and women and their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[jonathan_hili]

Well, they’re certainly socially good for the individuals in the relationship. Are they not part of society?

Not necessarily. I suppose it depends how you define socially “good”. If you understand “good” as workable, I guess you would say that same-sex relationships of these kinds are socially good. However, if you understand “good” as in a moral sense, that is, beneficial to one’s soul or one’s betterment (or in the Aristotelian sense of promoting human flourishing), then I don’t see how such relationships could be socially “good”. Using the first definition, being involved in the mafia would be socially good too, but not using the second.

 

[Slavonic]

Sexual orientation doesn’t refer to gender, If I decide I’m a dolphin, does that make me one? should I act like a dolphin? I’m pretty sure id drown if I tried that.

Yes, it does refer to gender, because it’s broken into mutually exclusive sets. When you introduce age, species, and familial relationships you make a mess, which you have indeed done.

Even if they are homosexual by sexual orientation, we all still remain physically heterosexual by nature, by design.

Yes, humans reproduce sexually and thus have different biological sexes. Heterosexuality is not the physical state of having a particular biological sex. Nor does it describe how humans reproduce. The opposite of sexual reproduction is asexual reproduction, not homosexuality. Heterosexuality is having one’s primary affections and attractions directed at those of the opposite sex.

Sexual orientation is just a model that allows you to pretend that homosexuality is a subjective state-of-mind rather than an objective physical reality.

Sexual orientation describes one primary attractions and affections which are very much tied with physical sexual activity (barring rape and other types of harm). Yes, it of course just a model. All models are wrong, but some of them are useful.

It is the objective physical reality of homosexuality that is immoral, just like it’s the objective physical reality of paedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy that makes them so immoral.

So if you base your decision on homosexuals desires, on their sexual orientation, than that would also include paedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy, **because these people likewise did not choose their sexual orientation either. **

Pedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy are not orientations. Nor are they comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pedophilia and bestiality speak for themselves. Incest and polygamy are an example of confusing and muddled sets i.e. incest between brothers or incest between brother and sister.

 

[JimG]

Sexual orientation describes one primary attractions and affections which are very much tied with physical sexual activity (barring rape and other types of harm). Yes, it of course just a model. All models are wrong, but some of them are useful.

Pedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy are not orientations. Nor are they comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pedophilia and bestiality speak for themselves. Incest and polygamy are an example of confusing and muddled sets i.e. incest between brothers or incest between brother and sister.

I think that those who are attracted to children or to having many wives would disagree that theirs is not a sexual orientation. In fact I can foresee them advocating for equality on the basis of their particular orientations. Pederast marriage, polygamous marriage, are next in line for benefits.

 

[Slavonic]

Not necessarily. I suppose it depends how you define socially “good”. If you understand “good” as workable, I guess you would say that same-sex relationships of these kinds are socially good. However, if you understand “good” as in a moral sense, that is, beneficial to one’s soul or one’s betterment (or in the Aristotelian sense of promoting human flourishing), then I don’t see how such relationships could be socially “good”. Using the first definition, being involved in the mafia would be socially good too, but not using the second.

I do indeed understand same-sex marriage under your second and Aristotelian definition of good. I see much good in a person finding some one to pair with, to share a life with, and have mutually supporting relationship with. Such stability is also good for society.

I think that those who are attracted to children or to having many wives would disagree that theirs is not a sexual orientation. In fact I can foresee them advocating for equality on the basis of their particular orientations. Pederast marriage, polygamous marriage, are next in line for benefits.

They can disagree all they want, they would be wrong. Children can’t enter into contracts. Polygamy was a legal issue before same-sex marriage.

 

[gracepoole]

I think that those who are attracted to children or to having many wives would disagree that theirs is not a sexual orientation. In fact I can foresee them advocating for equality on the basis of their particular orientations. Pederast marriage, polygamous marriage, are next in line for benefits.

Provide evidence for the claim that legal gay marriage leads to legal polygamy or legal incest.