The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[jimmy]

Because you’re not really answering the question. Accepting your premise for the sake of the argument, civilization defined this very specific relationship as “marriage” thousands of years ago. Now, thousands of years later, we’re contemplating changing the definition to be more inclusive. My question is, on what authority do those in opposition assert that this cannot be done?

Your answer amounts to saying that marriage was defined as X thousands of years ago, which is not an answer at all. Or you say that marriage was defined to outline relationships with very specific functions. I’ve already demonstrated why that answer is problematic, but even if it weren’t, my question would stand - why not change the functions by which we define marriage?

The problem with your argument is that it is essentially that it should be changed because it can be.

Maybe you can seperate biology from marriage and say that in some cases women have children outside of marriage and that children can be created in a lab. But just by saying that is possible doesn’t mean it is good. No one would say that a mother raising a child on her own, without the father, is the ideal situation. No one would say that a child being produced in a lab is good either. So why should your seperation be accepted?

You offer no value that says we should change it. Why change the definition? Because 1% of the population doesn’t like it and feels excluded? That is the problem with liberalism, everything is based on the abnormal, rather than on the norm. The minority rules, the majority is expected to follow along.

THe only way your argument makes sense is if you say that marriage has absolutely no value, and therefore we can redefine it how we want. If there is no value that one man and one woman brings to the table then we can change the definition, because there is no reason to keep it the same. You don’t need two parents, you don’t even need one. You can do everything in the lab, just as long as you have a surrogate. And in the lab we don’t even need to limit it to two parents; we can have three, or four, or five, or fifty parents (I recently read an article where the DNA from three people, two men and one woman was recombined and inserted into an embryo and implanted into a woman). Think of the amazing genetic variation. Biology has reached its zenith and saved humanity.

 

[ASimon]

Call me unconvinced.

Did you get the biology part? Male and female parts work together for a specific function.

And as I pointed out, they work together regardless of the martial status of the owner of said body parts.

You’re making a strident (if not effective) case against homosexuals having sex with one another. Maybe there’s a thread elsewhere on CAF where that’s being discussed. But here, we’re talking about homosexuals marrying one another. So, please try to stay on topic.

No they are not. Homosexuals are much more promiscuous, have more partners, end their relationships early and violently. How can this possibly be a model for children?

This is all most certainly false, especially the part about relationships ending early and violently. I’d ask you what junk science exists that affirms such a claim, but I don’t really want to know.

Interesting thing about the promiscuity and having many partners - do you know what kind of people tend to be less promiscuous and have fewer partners? MARRIED people! How monogamous would the average straight person be if society had never evolved the concept of marriage?

It cannot nor will it ever change because it is a deviant family unit. It may survive around the margins but it can never replace marriage between one man and one woman and that family unit. It will always violate the natural law no matter what man decrees.

Debora123:

I say that marriage is what it is. That is all. It really is that simple.

No matter what definition of marriage happens to exist, this could still be said for it - “It is what it is.” So it doesn’t even qualify as an argument. Heck, when gay marriage becomes law in this country, this will be my answer to you - “Marriage is what it is. It really is that simple.”

 

[buffalo]

And as I pointed out, they work together regardless of the martial status of the owner of said body parts.

You’re making a strident (if not effective) case against homosexuals having sex with one another. Maybe there’s a thread elsewhere on CAF where that’s being discussed. But here, we’re talking about homosexuals marrying one another. So, please try to stay on topic.

This is all most certainly false, especially the part about relationships ending early and violently. I’d ask you what junk science exists that affirms such a claim, but I don’t really want to know.

Interesting thing about the promiscuity and having many partners - do you know what kind of people tend to be less promiscuous and have fewer partners? MARRIED people! How monogamous would the average straight person be if society had never evolved the concept of marriage?

It cannot nor will it ever change because it is a deviant family unit. It may survive around the margins but it can never replace marriage between one man and one woman and that family unit. It will always violate the natural law no matter what man decrees.

No matter what definition of marriage happens to exist, this could still be said for it - “It is what it is.” So it doesn’t even qualify as an argument. Heck, when gay marriage becomes law in this country, this will be my answer to you - “Marriage is what it is. It really is that simple.”

Duh. Sure they do. And the plumbing does not work for homosexuals.

From there we move back to the rights of children and what is the normal family unit. You want to rewrite the manual.

Keep you head in the sand. Homo relationships are volatile and violent and not in the best interests of either society or children.

31 states have amendments already that affirm the natural family unit. Even if men try to overrule good with bad law it will never stand the test of time.

 

[ASimon]

The problem with your argument is that it is essentially that it should be changed because it can be.

Maybe you can seperate biology from marriage and say that in some cases women have children outside of marriage and that children can be created in a lab. But just by saying that is possible doesn’t mean it is good. No one would say that a mother raising a child on her own, without the father, is the ideal situation. No one would say that a child being produced in a lab is good either. So why should your seperation be accepted?

Because while it’s clear that having two attentive, loving, parents produce better outcomes for children than having only one, what’s also clear is that it’s NOT necessary for those two parents to be that child’s biological kin. This undoes the whole argument that the purpose of marriage must remain linked to biological child-rearing.

You offer no value that says we should change it. Why change the definition? Because 1% of the population doesn’t like it and feels excluded? That is the problem with liberalism, everything is based on the abnormal, rather than on the norm. The minority rules, the majority is expected to follow along.

It’s more than 1%, fyi. The answer to the question is that the rights are already assumed to exist, and the government can only deny them if there’s a compelling societal interest. There is no compelling societal interest, in this case. Anti-gay marriage folks have been trying to assert that one exists for years now, and none have been able to do it. That’s why the definition should be changed.

The only way your argument makes sense is if you say that marriage has absolutely no value, and therefore we can redefine it how we want. If there is no value that one man and one woman brings to the table then we can change the definition, because there is no reason to keep it the same. You don’t need two parents, you don’t even need one. You can do everything in the lab, just as long as you have a surrogate. And in the lab we don’t even need to limit it to two parents; we can have three, or four, or five, or fifty parents (I recently read an article where the DNA from three people, two men and one woman was recombined and inserted into an embryo and implanted into a woman). Think of the amazing genetic variation. Biology has reached its zenith and saved humanity.

Marriage absolutely does have value - but it also has an exceedingly narrow definition that excludes certain people needlessly, and to no compelling societal interest. And drawing on my earlier point, your attempts to necessarily tie parenting and genetics and biology into the equation do not inform your argument in the slightest.

 

[buffalo]

It’s more than 1%, fyi. .

Source?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

You remind me of the True Centrist…

Reach in your pocket, look at your money…“In God We Trust”…you will see it everywhere

What’s wrong is that there is no such thing as a homosexual minority as a class of people. Define your understanding of a minority…Race, Creed, Color, Religion…where does the homosexual fit in?

Another thing to note is that the “In God we Trust” was added later on in America’s history after fears of Communism, as Communism is very atheistic because belief in God does not support their political views. I’m suprised I know more about America’s history than you. I’m also not suprised people like you get treated badly by homosexuals, when you say what you say and do what you do.

 

[livingwordunity]

Dawn Stefanowicz was raised by a gay father. Here is an interview she gave to CWR:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/1448/raised_under_the_glbt_umbrella.aspx
Dawn Stefanowicz

From the article:

“After Dawn and her brother were conceived, their father ended sexual relations with his wife, and pursued homosexual relationships at well-known gay meeting places in Canada and the United States. Dawn was often brought along to many of these locations, even as a child. Her father had numerous gay lovers, and brought them into the home. At age 51, in 1991, he died of AIDS.”

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Call me unconvinced.
No they are not. Homosexuals are much more promiscuous, have more partners, end their relationships early and violently. How can this possibly be a model for children?

Not nessecarily true:
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth
There are plenty of homosexuals that seek monogamous relationships.

It cannot nor will it ever change because it is a deviant family unit. It may survive around the margins but it can never replace marriage between one man and one woman and that family unit. It will always violate the natural law no matter what man decrees.

It’s only deviant in the eyes of your god, and in order for you to prove such a thing you’d first have to prove the existence of your god. It’s also found in many other species, so, by definition, it is natural.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s also found in many other species, so, by definition, it is natural.

Animals are also known to sniff each others butts as a greeting. So your argument of “animals do it so why can’t we?” doesn’t hold water. Following your argument, one would assume that you also believe there’s nothing morally wrong with other sexually deviant behaviors such as incest or bestiality.

 

[buffalo]

Not nessecarily true:
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth
There are plenty of homosexuals that seek monogamous relationships.

It’s only deviant in the eyes of your god, and in order for you to prove such a thing you’d first have to prove the existence of your god. It’s also found in many other species, so, by definition, it is natural.

Oh boy… before we use the term plenty tell me how many there are. I asked for a source.

You have got to be kidding - because a lower order animal instinctively mounts another that is offered as proof and natural.

Do you even know what natural law is?

 

[jimmy]

Because while it’s clear that having two attentive, loving, parents produce better outcomes for children than having only one, what’s also clear is that it’s NOT necessary for those two parents to be that child’s biological kin. This undoes the whole argument that the purpose of marriage must remain linked to biological child-rearing.

It’s more than 1%, fyi. The answer to the question is that the rights are already assumed to exist, and the government can only deny them if there’s a compelling societal interest. There is no compelling societal interest, in this case. Anti-gay marriage folks have been trying to assert that one exists for years now, and none have been able to do it. That’s why the definition should be changed.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Oh boy… before we use the term plenty tell me how many there are. I asked for a source.

You have got to be kidding - because a lower order animal instinctively mounts another that is offered as proof and natural.

Do you even know what natural law is?

Yes, a system of law that is supposedly determined by nature and is universal. It’s a way of deciding out what is moral or not. I don’t really know how you decide what fits into natural law, though. It all seems very subjective to me.

But homosexuality is found in lots of animals, notably social animals (which is what humans are):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

However, they don’t normally engage in just homosexuality alone, but also heterosexuality. Although we probably can’t label their sexuality, I suppose we’d have to call them ‘bisexual’ if we did.

Before you mention it, I’m not saying that homosexuality being seen in nature nessecarily makes it moral, but it does make it natural.

 

[livingwordunity]

Before you mention it, I’m not saying that homosexuality being seen in nature nessecarily makes it moral, but it does make it natural.

What you are saying is everything that happens in life is natural because it sometimes happens. That makes no sense.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What you are saying is everything that happens in life is natural because it sometimes happens. That makes no sense.

No. I’m saying that if something happens in nature then, by definition, it is natural.

Natural - Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Of course, you have raised on an issue that people sometimes bring up. If humans are a part of nature then, I suppose, everything could be considered natural. At any rate, whether something is or isn’t natural doesn’t have any affect on whether it’s good or bad.

 

[livingwordunity]

No. I’m saying that if something happens in nature then, by definition, it is natural.

Natural - Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Do you believe that some things are universally morally wrong? If so, by what universal standard?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Do you believe that some things are universally morally wrong? If so, by what universal standard?

Morality is subjective. Nothing is universally morally wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

Another thing to note is that the “In God we Trust” was added later on in America’s history after fears of Communism, as Communism is very atheistic because belief in God does not support their political views. I’m suprised I know more about America’s history than you. I’m also not suprised people like you get treated badly by homosexuals, when you say what you say and do what you do.

Regular,

How do you conclude that you know about American History than me when all I said was reach in your pocket…it is still there, whether it came sooner or later…What is the biggest city in America…tell me that…?

 

[livingwordunity]

Morality is subjective. Nothing is universally morally wrong.

So you have no problem with things like incest or bestiality. Now I know where you are coming from.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

How do you conclude that you know about American History than me when all I said was reach in your pocket…it is still there, whether it came sooner or later…What is the biggest city in America…tell me that…?

America’s history wouldn’t include the size of cities, now, would it?

Besides, when it was added DOES matter, because the founding fathers of the USA created it to be a nation with church and state seperation. And, no, they were not all Christian as some people like to think. Thomas Jefferson seemed to disprove of Christianity. I think he was a deist or pantheist of sorts.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

 

[buffalo]

Yes, a system of law that is supposedly determined by nature and is universal. It’s a way of deciding out what is moral or not. I don’t really know how you decide what fits into natural law, though. It all seems very subjective to me.

But homosexuality is found in lots of animals, notably social animals (which is what humans are):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

However, they don’t normally engage in just homosexuality alone, but also heterosexuality. Although we probably can’t label their sexuality, I suppose we’d have to call them ‘bisexual’ if we did.

Before you mention it, I’m not saying that homosexuality being seen in nature nessecarily makes it moral, but it does make it natural.

Nope - it makes it neither, for in any case it cannot achieve purpose therefore it is deviant. Now we can start asking why it even exists?

I beg to differ with the human classification of humans just being social animals.