Here's what I don't get, say we do allow **** marriage. What will we allow next? Why can't we allow incestual marriages, they aren't hurting anyone. They're a real loving family, nothing wrong with that, right? What about me marrying my dog? I promise she will keep the barking down and we will always pay rent on time. Why would we not allow these examples of "marriages", but allow homosexual ones?
Apparently, consent is the be all and end all of unnatural sexual desires. By unnatural I mean those desires that natural selection is trying to stomp out.
If little Fi-Fi cannot give consent, then its wrong to mate with her. I personally feel that its a little bit more in depth than that, but many disagree.
With families, close relatives copulating leads to horrible defects in offspring, and is illegal for that reason. But then you get the whole "What if I have sex with my homosexual brother" - then whose to criticise... Both consenting, both related, both not going to have defective kids. Still terribly terribly wrong, but now we are caught without a decent reason to condemn it.
KungFuSquirrel, good point about the broad nature of the study. Its not fair to compare the entire homosexual relations scene with simply the married hetero relations scene. However, the study compartmentalises things a little, and makes note that even in the "dedicated, committed relationship" section of the research, monogamy was the extremely rare exception.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Apparently, consent is the be all and end all of unnatural sexual desires. By unnatural I mean those desires that natural selection is trying to stomp out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be born homosexual seems to be natural selection itself. Unless you adopt or insemanate then nature will have both die without children. Weeding them out from the gene pool. Those examples I gave are the same, neither produced results that are the base of a marriage, raise a healthy child. If the do then that child will come out with some birth defect. If marriage for homosexuals is not about raising a child then it is not desired for it's intended reason.
<!--QuoteBegin-The_Angel_of_Death+Mar 4 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The_Angel_of_Death @ Mar 4 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here's what I don't get, say we do allow **** marriage. What will we allow next? Why can't we allow incestual marriages, they aren't hurting anyone. They're a real loving family, nothing wrong with that, right? What about me marrying my dog? I promise she will keep the barking down and we will always pay rent on time. Why would we not allow these examples of "marriages", but allow homosexual ones? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incest has a provable detrimental effect on the physical health of the progeny. Allowing inbreeding causes genetic weaknesses/problems to surface where in a normal mixing of genes (IE non-related parents) they would not (or be far less likely to).
Animals cannot give consent, and the cornerstone of what we are arguing here is whether or not people should be able to do as they wish if they both give consent. Pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality (all used as a slippery slope argument designed to tie the emotion of disgust to homosexuality) are all different from homosexuality in that one of the parties cannot give informed consent.
As an aside, allowing homosexual relations <u>would</u> pave the way for polygamous relationships since with polygamy you have an informed, consenting relation between people just as you do with homosexual relations.
There will never be a big enough group pushing for it.
Homosexual marriges will always have support, because there will always be homosexuals and most of them will want to marry.
However, how many people do you think you can find that are truely interested, and truely outraged that they can not have a union with multiple spouces?
The only group I could possibly see is the sect thats an off-shoot of the Morman relgion, and I'm fairly sure their numbers are small.
Edit:
<!--QuoteBegin- The Angel of Death+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( The Angel of Death)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those examples I gave are the same, neither produced results that are the base of a marriage, raise a healthy child. If the do then that child will come out with some birth defect. If marriage for homosexuals is not about raising a child then it is not desired for it's intended reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, the point of marriage (according to you, that is) is to "raise a healthy child", correct?
Then, I guess that means we can't allow couples who don't want children to marry. Nor those who are sterile. Nor the poor, because they won't always be able to afford proper medical care.
Hrrrmmmm - I notice everyone dodges the homosexual brothers problem. Someone care to comment on whats wrong specifically with two homosexual brothers taking part in intercourse?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hrrrmmmm - I notice everyone dodges the homosexual brothers problem. Someone care to comment on whats wrong specifically with two homosexual brothers taking part in intercourse? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing as far as I can tell. Why do you say that its 'terribly terribly wrong'?
<!--QuoteBegin-Typhon+Mar 6 2004, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Typhon @ Mar 6 2004, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hrrrmmmm - I notice everyone dodges the homosexual brothers problem. Someone care to comment on whats wrong specifically with two homosexual brothers taking part in intercourse? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing as far as I can tell. Why do you say that its 'terribly terribly wrong'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing as far as you can tell? What would you say if your best friend said he'd been having sex with his own father? On second thoughts, dont answer that.... I'm done with this thread.
When it is not immediately obvious whats wrong with daughters having sex with their mothers, fathers having sex with their sons, and brothers having sex with each other, and sisters have sex with each other, then sickening perversity has become the accepted norm. Hell, throw in a vasectomy for the man, and technically there's nothing wrong with mating your mother/sister/daughter. Tubal litigation for the female, and you can mate with your son/father/brother.
I cant argue with you, I cant reason in this thread, because we are so far at either end of the spectrum that their is no hope for rationality here. I'm off to heave my stomach contents into the nearest toilet.
If I may put in an aside, Polygamous relationships could only ever be viewed as acceptable if the ratio of males to females was low, IE, 1 male for every 20 females.
Consider if you will another viewpoint, a hypothetical.
In this hypothetical, we assume that there are two civilisations. One reproduces the "Normal" way, through good ol' sexual reproduction.
The other is asexual. They are essentially androgynous. They "Bud" Split off, or any other way of asexual reproduction, whatever.
Consider when the two civilisations meet. The Andro's think the Norm's are disgusting and vice versa. It's unnatural and abominable that either side reproduces the way they do.
This is essentially a similar argument, the difference being that Homosexual persons cannot produce offspring naturally. That and g4y people are not a seperate civilisation, but are a subset of ours.
Lets try to keep this confined to the issue of g4y marriage et al, not side track it with Incest and Bestiality, both of which are considered abberations of the human sexual compass by both g4y and straight persons.
Yes I can tell the first definition is that of being between a man and a woman because that is what it is at present. Look lower down, option d.
That is what I personally define marriage as. When I was forced to go to sunday school many moon ago, I was taught that marriage is the union of two souls. Not how their bits fit together.
There isnt even a religious stance against g4y marriage. The passage where g4y people are decried and denounced is, surprise surprise, in the old testament. The same place that says you cant go to the toilet or else you are unclean for a full week, the same place in which a good many con artists quote out of context for their own ends. Read the new testament. If my memory serves me correctly, Jesus did not once decry a g4y man, nor denounce them.
From the christian/catholic stance, there is no argument against g4y marriage.
I apologise in advance if I've missed something glaringly obvious or if I've reiterated something someone else said earlier. I'm a bit too strapped for time here, more virii to root out...
<!--QuoteBegin-Jojoshua+Mar 5 2004, 09:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jojoshua @ Mar 5 2004, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Same sex marriage is disgusting and wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did the little Bible tell you so?
Look dude, we arent potatoes. There will always be enough women and men for genuine marriage in God's eyes.
Also, let me tell you a little something about the New Testament and Jesus' stand. You say he never condemed any **** dude, well....of course he didnt. He never condemed anyone. A popular Old Testament view and especially the view of John the Baptist, was that Jesus was the messiah, the one prophesized about and he would raise up his people, the righteous, and strike down their enemies. When Jesus came, he came with the compassion and love that they expected , but not the judgement part of the prophecy. He shows the compassion and love of God first, then on his second coming, will be judgement.
So back to the point, he would show love to all sinners now/then and by his second coming, if things have not changed. There will be no excuse. Think on that.
You can prove whatever you want with the Bible. Doesn't it also say something about being a virgin before marriage? Gee, what's the punishment for not being one.
Face it, after all the horrible things people did based on religion, that's not a succesful point to argue.
<!--QuoteBegin-MrMojo+Mar 5 2004, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Mar 5 2004, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can prove whatever you want with the Bible. Doesn't it also say something about being a virgin before marriage? Gee, what's the punishment for not being one.
Face it, after all the horrible things people did based on religion, that's not a succesful point to argue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Every crime in the book has been accused on account of God. Means nothing. We are all sinners, but we can repent and be forgiven of sin. Real punishment is a life without God, an eternal one at that.
Edit: I should have said it is my opinion that same sex marriage is disgusting and wrong because I do not have that authority to judge.
I'm talking about prejuduce and oppresion that was somehow justified by religion. That's exactly what the arguments against **** marriage are, it's wrong and immoral, look in the bible.
Don't say "it's your opinion".
Maddox: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well that's just your opinion:
This one pisses me off just thinking about it. If you slit my throat right now you'd get shot in the eye with boiling blood. Any time you say something sucks around someone who disagrees, they try to validate their taste in ***** music/movies/clothing by reminding you that you still only speak for yourself, as if their opinions are in jeopardy of being monopolized by your own. Everyone already knows it's my opinion by virtue of the fact that I said it, no need to restate the obvious you dopey ****.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Jojoshua+Mar 5 2004, 09:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jojoshua @ Mar 5 2004, 09:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: I should have said it is my opinion that same sex marriage is disgusting and wrong because I do not have that authority to judge. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even better, you should have posted reasons or argument instead of just spewing out one line in the middle of a lengthy discussion.
Also, as I have said before, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL. We are talking about the legality of homosexual marriage here, specifically its legality in the US. We had a homosexual morality thread (mixed religious and non-religious discussion) a while ago, it got so bad they had to create a new forum rule to keep it from happening again.
So you think its disgusting? Tell me, do you find <insert favorite 'disgusting' fetish here> disgusting too? Well guess what? The US legal system could care less if it is disgusting, you need beter reasons than that to make something illegal, and thats the way it should be.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 5 2004, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 5 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jojoshua+Mar 5 2004, 09:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jojoshua @ Mar 5 2004, 09:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: I should have said it is my opinion that same sex marriage is disgusting and wrong because I do not have that authority to judge. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even better, you should have posted reasons or argument instead of just spewing out one line in the middle of a lengthy discussion.
Also, as I have said before, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL. We are talking about the legality of homosexual marriage here, specifically its legality in the US. We had a homosexual morality thread (mixed religious and non-religious discussion) a while ago, it got so bad they had to create a new forum rule to keep it from happening again.
So you think its disgusting? Tell me, do you find <insert favorite 'disgusting' fetish here> disgusting too? Well guess what? The US legal system could care less if it is disgusting, you need beter reasons than that to make something illegal, and thats the way it should be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Something like I posted 2 pages ago and nobody has yet to refute?
Mojo, I posted an argument against homosexual marriage from a completely secular basis not too long ago. Refute that, don't rip jojo to bits for sticking up for his faith, on the grounds that it's bigotted and wrong. If you care to argue with me on that point, I'd like to hear your points against it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it, after all the horrible things people did based on religion, that's not a succesful point to argue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mao. Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot.
Combined death total: Almost 100 million people.
People do horrible things, and all unjust things that have been done in the name of God are those that have drawn off a mutiliated theology. True Christianity teaches values of pacifism, forgiveness, compassion, and self-sacrifice.
But let's not get off-topic. Lets just get back to refuting my argument, or start a separate thread to deal with these flames.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 5 2004, 06:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 5 2004, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Something like I posted 2 pages ago and nobody has yet to refute? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Personally I don't think it needs to be refuted. Rather than post about it again, I'll just quote what I said earlier:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A child raised by a normal homosexual couple will never be as damaged by that as if it had alchoholic straight parents. So what if they do slightly worse in school, if your going to ban marriage on that account you may as well ban it for people with an IQ < 110. I know, lets simplify things, lets just genetically engeneer our children from birth (when the tech is available) to be perfect, that way anyone can get married.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm trying to say is that even if your evidence is never proporly refuted, it doesn't need to be because all it proves is that homosexual parents wont be perfect. Big friggen deal. Last time I checked alchoholics, rapists, mureders, con artists, and drug dealers weren't banned from being married, or even having kids.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Mar 5 2004, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 5 2004, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Typhon+Mar 6 2004, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Typhon @ Mar 6 2004, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hrrrmmmm - I notice everyone dodges the homosexual brothers problem. Someone care to comment on whats wrong specifically with two homosexual brothers taking part in intercourse? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing as far as I can tell. Why do you say that its 'terribly terribly wrong'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing as far as you can tell? What would you say if your best friend said he'd been having sex with his own father? On second thoughts, dont answer that.... I'm done with this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you're done with the thread, I guess you won't be reading this, but your full response can be condensed down to a simple "ew!" I think father/son incest is pretty disgusting myself. Guess what? The people who take part in it probably don't. Should I let their morals define my lifestyle? Why should mine define theirs?
It's rhetorical. Nobody is able to judge what is "moral" or "immoral" because it all boils down to personal biases. No two people on the world have the exact same morals or lifestyles. This is why we must rely on the law, which we hope to be impartial, to govern our lifestyles. And I don't believe there is a law of "ew."
<!--QuoteBegin-Windelkron+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nobody is able to judge what is "moral" or "immoral" because it all boils down to personal biases. No two people on the world have the exact same morals or lifestyles. This is why we must rely on the law, which we hope to be impartial, to govern our lifestyles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is probably one of the most brilliant things I have ever heard, and now that I read it, it seems like it should have been obvious from the beginning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nobody is able to judge what is "moral" or "immoral" because it all boils down to personal biases. No two people on the world have the exact same morals or lifestyles. This is why we must rely on the law, which we hope to be impartial, to govern our lifestyles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is probably one of the most brilliant things I have ever heard, and now that I read it, it seems like it should have been obvious from the beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem you have intellectually bankrupt and brilliant confused.
Comments
If little Fi-Fi cannot give consent, then its wrong to mate with her. I personally feel that its a little bit more in depth than that, but many disagree.
With families, close relatives copulating leads to horrible defects in offspring, and is illegal for that reason. But then you get the whole "What if I have sex with my homosexual brother" - then whose to criticise... Both consenting, both related, both not going to have defective kids. Still terribly terribly wrong, but now we are caught without a decent reason to condemn it.
KungFuSquirrel, good point about the broad nature of the study. Its not fair to compare the entire homosexual relations scene with simply the married hetero relations scene. However, the study compartmentalises things a little, and makes note that even in the "dedicated, committed relationship" section of the research, monogamy was the extremely rare exception.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be born homosexual seems to be natural selection itself. Unless you adopt or insemanate then nature will have both die without children. Weeding them out from the gene pool. Those examples I gave are the same, neither produced results that are the base of a marriage, raise a healthy child. If the do then that child will come out with some birth defect. If marriage for homosexuals is not about raising a child then it is not desired for it's intended reason.
Incest has a provable detrimental effect on the physical health of the progeny. Allowing inbreeding causes genetic weaknesses/problems to surface where in a normal mixing of genes (IE non-related parents) they would not (or be far less likely to).
Animals cannot give consent, and the cornerstone of what we are arguing here is whether or not people should be able to do as they wish if they both give consent. Pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality (all used as a slippery slope argument designed to tie the emotion of disgust to homosexuality) are all different from homosexuality in that one of the parties cannot give informed consent.
As an aside, allowing homosexual relations <u>would</u> pave the way for polygamous relationships since with polygamy you have an informed, consenting relation between people just as you do with homosexual relations.
There will never be a big enough group pushing for it.
Homosexual marriges will always have support, because there will always be homosexuals and most of them will want to marry.
However, how many people do you think you can find that are truely interested, and truely outraged that they can not have a union with multiple spouces?
The only group I could possibly see is the sect thats an off-shoot of the Morman relgion, and I'm fairly sure their numbers are small.
Edit:
<!--QuoteBegin- The Angel of Death+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( The Angel of Death)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those examples I gave are the same, neither produced results that are the base of a marriage, raise a healthy child. If the do then that child will come out with some birth defect. If marriage for homosexuals is not about raising a child then it is not desired for it's intended reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, the point of marriage (according to you, that is) is to "raise a healthy child", correct?
Then, I guess that means we can't allow couples who don't want children to marry. Nor those who are sterile. Nor the poor, because they won't always be able to afford proper medical care.
<Insert Counter-Arguement Below>
Nothing as far as I can tell. Why do you say that its 'terribly terribly wrong'?
Nothing as far as I can tell. Why do you say that its 'terribly terribly wrong'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing as far as you can tell? What would you say if your best friend said he'd been having sex with his own father? On second thoughts, dont answer that.... I'm done with this thread.
When it is not immediately obvious whats wrong with daughters having sex with their mothers, fathers having sex with their sons, and brothers having sex with each other, and sisters have sex with each other, then sickening perversity has become the accepted norm. Hell, throw in a vasectomy for the man, and technically there's nothing wrong with mating your mother/sister/daughter. Tubal litigation for the female, and you can mate with your son/father/brother.
I cant argue with you, I cant reason in this thread, because we are so far at either end of the spectrum that their is no hope for rationality here. I'm off to heave my stomach contents into the nearest toilet.
Consider if you will another viewpoint, a hypothetical.
In this hypothetical, we assume that there are two civilisations. One reproduces the "Normal" way, through good ol' sexual reproduction.
The other is asexual. They are essentially androgynous. They "Bud" Split off, or any other way of asexual reproduction, whatever.
Consider when the two civilisations meet. The Andro's think the Norm's are disgusting and vice versa. It's unnatural and abominable that either side reproduces the way they do.
This is essentially a similar argument, the difference being that Homosexual persons cannot produce offspring naturally. That and g4y people are not a seperate civilisation, but are a subset of ours.
Lets try to keep this confined to the issue of g4y marriage et al, not side track it with Incest and Bestiality, both of which are considered abberations of the human sexual compass by both g4y and straight persons.
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Marriage' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Marriage</a>
^^ Dictionary.com's definition of marriage.
Yes I can tell the first definition is that of being between a man and a woman because that is what it is at present. Look lower down, option d.
That is what I personally define marriage as. When I was forced to go to sunday school many moon ago, I was taught that marriage is the union of two souls. Not how their bits fit together.
There isnt even a religious stance against g4y marriage. The passage where g4y people are decried and denounced is, surprise surprise, in the old testament. The same place that says you cant go to the toilet or else you are unclean for a full week, the same place in which a good many con artists quote out of context for their own ends. Read the new testament. If my memory serves me correctly, Jesus did not once decry a g4y man, nor denounce them.
From the christian/catholic stance, there is no argument against g4y marriage.
I apologise in advance if I've missed something glaringly obvious or if I've reiterated something someone else said earlier. I'm a bit too strapped for time here, more virii to root out...
Did the little Bible tell you so?
Also, let me tell you a little something about the New Testament and Jesus' stand.
You say he never condemed any **** dude, well....of course he didnt. He never condemed anyone. A popular Old Testament view and especially the view of John the Baptist, was that Jesus was the messiah, the one prophesized about and he would raise up his people, the righteous, and strike down their enemies. When Jesus came, he came with the compassion and love that they expected , but not the judgement part of the prophecy. He shows the compassion and love of God first, then on his second coming, will be judgement.
So back to the point, he would show love to all sinners now/then and by his second coming, if things have not changed. There will be no excuse.
Think on that.
Face it, after all the horrible things people did based on religion, that's not a succesful point to argue.
Face it, after all the horrible things people did based on religion, that's not a succesful point to argue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every crime in the book has been accused on account of God. Means nothing. We are all sinners, but we can repent and be forgiven of sin. Real punishment is a life without God, an eternal one at that.
Edit: I should have said it is my opinion that same sex marriage is disgusting and wrong because I do not have that authority to judge.
Don't say "it's your opinion".
Maddox:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well that's just your opinion:
This one pisses me off just thinking about it. If you slit my throat right now you'd get shot in the eye with boiling blood. Any time you say something sucks around someone who disagrees, they try to validate their taste in ***** music/movies/clothing by reminding you that you still only speak for yourself, as if their opinions are in jeopardy of being monopolized by your own. Everyone already knows it's my opinion by virtue of the fact that I said it, no need to restate the obvious you dopey ****.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even better, you should have posted reasons or argument instead of just spewing out one line in the middle of a lengthy discussion.
Also, as I have said before, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL. We are talking about the legality of homosexual marriage here, specifically its legality in the US. We had a homosexual morality thread (mixed religious and non-religious discussion) a while ago, it got so bad they had to create a new forum rule to keep it from happening again.
So you think its disgusting? Tell me, do you find <insert favorite 'disgusting' fetish here> disgusting too? Well guess what? The US legal system could care less if it is disgusting, you need beter reasons than that to make something illegal, and thats the way it should be.
Even better, you should have posted reasons or argument instead of just spewing out one line in the middle of a lengthy discussion.
Also, as I have said before, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL. We are talking about the legality of homosexual marriage here, specifically its legality in the US. We had a homosexual morality thread (mixed religious and non-religious discussion) a while ago, it got so bad they had to create a new forum rule to keep it from happening again.
So you think its disgusting? Tell me, do you find <insert favorite 'disgusting' fetish here> disgusting too? Well guess what? The US legal system could care less if it is disgusting, you need beter reasons than that to make something illegal, and thats the way it should be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something like I posted 2 pages ago and nobody has yet to refute?
Mojo, I posted an argument against homosexual marriage from a completely secular basis not too long ago. Refute that, don't rip jojo to bits for sticking up for his faith, on the grounds that it's bigotted and wrong. If you care to argue with me on that point, I'd like to hear your points against it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it, after all the horrible things people did based on religion, that's not a succesful point to argue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mao.
Hitler.
Stalin.
Pol Pot.
Combined death total: Almost 100 million people.
People do horrible things, and all unjust things that have been done in the name of God are those that have drawn off a mutiliated theology. True Christianity teaches values of pacifism, forgiveness, compassion, and self-sacrifice.
But let's not get off-topic. Lets just get back to refuting my argument, or start a separate thread to deal with these flames.
Something like I posted 2 pages ago and nobody has yet to refute? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I don't think it needs to be refuted. Rather than post about it again, I'll just quote what I said earlier:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A child raised by a normal homosexual couple will never be as damaged by that as if it had alchoholic straight parents. So what if they do slightly worse in school, if your going to ban marriage on that account you may as well ban it for people with an IQ < 110. I know, lets simplify things, lets just genetically engeneer our children from birth (when the tech is available) to be perfect, that way anyone can get married.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm trying to say is that even if your evidence is never proporly refuted, it doesn't need to be because all it proves is that homosexual parents wont be perfect. Big friggen deal. Last time I checked alchoholics, rapists, mureders, con artists, and drug dealers weren't banned from being married, or even having kids.
Nothing as far as I can tell. Why do you say that its 'terribly terribly wrong'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing as far as you can tell? What would you say if your best friend said he'd been having sex with his own father? On second thoughts, dont answer that.... I'm done with this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're done with the thread, I guess you won't be reading this, but your full response can be condensed down to a simple "ew!" I think father/son incest is pretty disgusting myself. Guess what? The people who take part in it probably don't. Should I let their morals define my lifestyle? Why should mine define theirs?
It's rhetorical. Nobody is able to judge what is "moral" or "immoral" because it all boils down to personal biases. No two people on the world have the exact same morals or lifestyles. This is why we must rely on the law, which we hope to be impartial, to govern our lifestyles. And I don't believe there is a law of "ew."
That is probably one of the most brilliant things I have ever heard, and now that I read it, it seems like it should have been obvious from the beginning.
Nobody is able to judge what is "moral" or "immoral" because it all boils down to personal biases. No two people on the world have the exact same morals or lifestyles. This is why we must rely on the law, which we hope to be impartial, to govern our lifestyles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is probably one of the most brilliant things I have ever heard, and now that I read it, it seems like it should have been obvious from the beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem you have intellectually bankrupt and brilliant confused.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63576&st=90' target='_blank'>Disagree?</a>