Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument doesn't work for those who phyiscally can't. A test will prove that.

/me looks through files

Lesseee..

"through no fault of their own."

Ahh. Now we are in the right place.

Marriage should not be barred from people, through no fault of their own, they cannot have children. Homosexual people do not fall in this category because they voluntarily choose not to have children.

[Ben Kenobi]

The server is ****ed up.

Only you are double posting.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ming


nahhh... he will just continue to ignore the subject of heterosexual couples who can't have kids or won't and know it before they get married. To him, they should be allowed to get married, but that gays can't since they can't have children.

to be fair I thot his stance was that there is no practical way to keep them out.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Marriage should not be barred from people, through no fault of their own, they cannot have children. Homosexual people do not fall in this category because they voluntarily choose not to have children.

+

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First, I do think love and desire to have children need to both be there in marriage.

There are plenty of homosexual people who do want to have children, either through adoption or a surrogate mother/sperm donor.

In both cases there is the desire to have children as well as love.

[yavoon]

in the spirit of the thread starter in asknig dubiously odd questions.

when were rights defined by personal preference or orientation?

as far as I can see gay ppl are allowed to marry just as much as straight ppl. and the actualy argument is should ANYONE be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by yavoon
to be fair I thot his stance was that there is no practical way to keep them out.

Not those who don't want to, but quite easily those who can't. Simply require proof of fertility of both partners.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Mercator


Not those who don't want to, but quite easily those who can't. Simply require proof of fertility of both partners.

not so simple. pretty easily smacked down by invasion of privacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mercator:

Some of the most basic ideas of a religion will inevitably remain the same, but for the most part it should (and has) adapt to the ever-changing society it is a part of.

True, but at what cost? What if society around them no longer believes in God? Does the religion have to reject God in order to conform with society?

Some things are changeable, and should change, but other things should not. Christianity is very stubborn in asking for a seperation between the world and between Christians. "What good is salt if it loses its saltiness?"

From their original inspiring creative melting pot of ideas

What creative melting pot? Child sacrifice to Moloch?

To condense it down to one sentence: I don't understand how rigidly sticking to a definition of marriage or rejecting homosexuality, whatever, is in line with ancient traditions of religion such as freedom of though, creativity and self-determination.

Okay. Remember, you've just given me permission to argue outside of a secular realm.

Christianity, up until now, has always taught that marriage is a sacrament, between one man and one woman, even those who are not sacramentalists, accept that God has given men marriage, and not the other way around. Thus, it is not in the realm of men to change marriage.

God wants men to be fruitful and to multiply. Part of that command allows for marriage between men and women, to fulfill that command. Christ himself refers to the ideal of marriage in Adam and Eve, in the two becoming one flesh. He argues against divorce, by affirming the ideal, rather than the fallen cases we see around us today.

God takes a very high view of human sexuality, in making the point that one should seek marriage, or else total abstinence, a point completely contrary to the world around us today. The reason being that when you unite yourself with anyone, you retain a bond, that should not be broken.

In our modern, Western, society homosexuality has taken its place and it is finally being accepted. How then can you defend attacking it?

For the very reason that it is misusing a gift from God, our sexuality.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Marriage should not be barred from people, through no fault of their own, they cannot have children. Homosexual people do not fall in this category because they voluntarily choose not to have children.

Many homosexual couples want children and do have them. I don't think its their "fault" that sexual acts involving the couple can't result in children. Those that want children act exactly the same as infertile heterosexual couples and either use technology/artificial means, adopt or accept their childless state.


Next strawman please

[Ben Kenobi]

There are plenty of homosexual people who do want to have children, either through adoption or a surrogate mother/sperm donor.

Not the point. They are perfectly able to have children the usual way, but choose not to. Why should we accomodate their personal preferences, at the expense of those who have no other option?

[Flubber]

Religion versus the law. . ..


I have no problem with a religion defining marriage as they see fit and if certain faiths believe that homosexuality is a "sin", its within their right as a faith to believe that and NOT consecrate those unions in their faith.

But the law, the law should treat people equally and the reality is that now it does not in that the bundle of rights and obligations that is marriage is denied to homosexual couples for reasons that defy logic.

For example:

Why should not a life partner

a) get to make critical medical decisions
b) be entitled to pensions and benefits
c) become entitled to the estate of their partner if there is no will
d) get generally treated by the legal system as the family member that they are

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not the point. They are perfectly able to have children the usual way, but choose not to. Why should we accomodate their personal preferences, at the expense of those who have no other option?

How is it at the expense of anyone???

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think its their "fault" that sexual acts involving the couple can't result in children.

Sure it is. Infertile couples do not choose their state. Homosexuals do.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is it at the expense of anyone???

Scarce resources.

Flubber:

Tar me with that brush again. It's better than addressing the points. "Reasons that defy logic?"

a) get to make critical medical decisions
b) be entitled to pensions and benefits
c) become entitled to the estate of their partner if there is no will
d) get generally treated by the legal system as the family member that they are

I give you d. They are a family member. Being a family member does not entitle one to the rest.

c) Too bad. No will, boo hoo.

b) Expensive. You want to reduce pension amounts for everyone? How could you refuse any relationship from counting as a pension?

a) Over who?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Scarce resources.

HUH?? you will have to explain that one.