10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Whaleboy]

However, there is a world of difference between saying this and saying that human beings are not affected in any way by nature. We are not solely spirit, we have bodies.

Nowhere did I say that.

Assuming that we observed this behaviour in certain groups and organisations, we can conclude from there that homosexuality is a learned trait and not innate. You would in fact change your behaviour depending on the social environment in which one was raised.

Correct. There may be naturalistic tendencies, i.e., some may be born to be statistically more likely to be gay for genetic reasons (supposition), but the determining factor for that or any other facet of an individuals life, is their upbringing and life experience. You will of course turn round and say that homosexuality is bad and logically by my argument, should be treated. That requires a great deal of work on your part to show.

However, I would suspect most gay people would say there is nothing unnatural, and that their desires for other men are in fact a natural desire and ought not to be suppressed. Are you arguing to the contrary, Whaleboy?

What we feel and what we are may well be two completely different things. As one individual treats another, if they feel that something is natural and right for them, then the holistic fact that describes the narrative to cause that feeling to be does not describe the experience, and it is that experience that is valid in a given discussion.

So I would say that you need to revise your binary rationale here.

So consent has nothing to do with it then. Now, do you believe that all animals that can feel pain ought to be treated in the same way as people? You are saying it is in fact wrong to sleep with animals because you can cause them pain, but wouldn't that also rule out eating animals since you have to kill them in order to eat them?

Like I say, whole new philosophical can of worms. It all depends upon where in between perceiving an animal as conscious or an object you stand. IMO, if you respect consent, then you respect someones responsibility, and logically your own, so Maslows hierarchy of needs kicks in (of course, merely in the categorical sense, not hypothetical so you can't really form a moral system out of this, rather an interplay of responsibility). That would say that using an animal for food is distinct from using an animal for sexual gratification.

So it is insufficient to say that pain is the reason why bestiality is wrong.

Too simplistic, since your interpretation would not allow one to tread on any animal should it feel pain.

Oh, and by the way, Christianity does not bar bestiality on the reasoning that it is animal cruelty. Christianity does not distinguish between homosexuality and bestiality, both are condemned as contrary to natural order.

Which explains why Christians are so firmly opposed to homosexuality and use the slippery slope argument. However since Christianity seems in permanent denial of mans ability to account for his own actions and use his own intelligence, I am not surprised they dont recognise the ability to consent as important here.

As for pedophilia, if consent no longer matters, your only standard now is that it could be painful to the child.

But, as above, consent does matter, as a function of your own responsibility; otherwise, it would simply be meaningless anyway. Given consent, why respect it, unless it affects your own responsibility?

[Ben Kenobi]

I've heard the same stuff on all kinds of issues from nuclear family byproducts...about single-parents, etc.

I've never really understood the concept of a 'role-model' anyway and never have. Are there any real people so pathetic as to create themselves in slavish imitation of another? Are kids raised in total isolation?

No, that's not really what is going on here. Look, seeker there are some things mothers do better with their own daughters then their fathers can do for their daughters, just because they are mothers. Same with the fathers and their sons. However, this argument also assumes there are certain innate differences between men and women. How can a mother expect to be a father to her own sons at the same time as being their mother?

[Whaleboy]

How can a mother expect to be a father to her own sons at the same time as being their mother?

My mother managed pretty damn well.

[mrmitchell]

How can a mother expect to be a father to her own sons at the same time as being their mother?

I don't know where you're going with this but it's not going anywhere, since obviously millions of single parents or other non-nuclear families are out there raising children...

[Gibsie]

The ninth point is kinda lame... mist decent god-fearing folk hate single parents just as much as they hate gays!

[Barnabas]

Whaleboy, actually, it is hard to legalize homosexual marriage and not eventually legalizing polygamy.

After all, if 2 women love a man, and the man loves them, and they dont mind sharing, and the three-somes are lots of fun, and they are consenting adults, then, why not?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, the Episcopal Church of the USA?

Hey Bub, if that were true things would be a whole lot different everywhere on the surface of this planet, let me tell you! If we had the whole USA you'd be singin' hymns from the Book of Common Prayer my maple syrup swilling friend!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Hmm.

"All species have the natural impulse to propagate their kind."

Sounds an awful lot like someone else, eh Odin?

Humans are naturally xenophobic, so is racism moral?

An "is" does not mean "ought to be", which is why Aquinas is BS.

[Datajack Franit]

[Berzerker]

This is why it is said that reproduction, and sexual activity with the purposes of reproduction is said to be in harmony with the natural order, because it would also permit the perpetuation of the species, regardless of whether you are a man or an animal.

As for homosexuality in higher mammals, you would be running up against the assumption that the natural order is for an organism to perpetuate itself.

"All species have the natural impulse to propagate their kind."

Is rape in harmony with this natural order? Seems to me homosexuality is in harmony with the natural order and does help to perpetuate the species by supplying child bearing couples with relatives who by virtue of having no children are free to help people with children. After all, many species survive because plenty of caretakers who dont procreate are available to help those who do procreate.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah, there is 1 reason and only 1 reason I can think of why "gay marriage" is wrong, "marriage" is a term describing a certain kind of relationship between a male and female. Doh! We dont refer to sex between consenting adults as pedophilism because the term describes a "relationship" between an adult and a child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But, Berz, definitions do change. After all, 'nice' in 1500 Europe was an insult, not a compliment!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But, Berz, definitions do change. After all, 'nice' in 1500 Europe was an insult, not a compliment!

Oh, for this thread I can do much better than that:

In the 19th century "homosexual" meant someone who had sex only with members of the opposite sex, while "heterosexual" referred to someone who had sex with both men and women (apparently. there was no word for someone who had sex only with members of their own sex).

In other words, in the 19th century, "homosexual marriage" was redundant.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

I don't know where you're going with this but it's not going anywhere, since obviously millions of single parents or other non-nuclear families are out there raising children...

YOU BASTARD -- HAVE YOU NO CONCERN FOR THE PRECIOUS CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!??????????



Children raised by single parents are socially inferior compared to children raised by two parents -- it's OBVIOUS!!!!!!!

[Berzerker]

But, Berz, definitions do change. After all, 'nice' in 1500 Europe was an insult, not a compliment!

In English? Sure, terms acquire different definitions but usually after some sort of consensus formed to support the change and usually the change is rather mundane.