10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Ben Kenobi]

They - low libido and homosexuality - need not be associated (other than both being products of the helper phenomenon).

That's my point. If they aren't associated with each other, why cite the helper phenomenon as evidence of both? It would seem to me that if we see two alternative explanations for the same thing we observe, and neither one is said to be similar to the other, that they would not arise from the same cause.

For most of human history (and I include several million years of hominids) the nuclear family could have resulted in our extinction while the extended family and the clan is how we survived. Why? The availability of adults to help propagate the species thru procreation of course, but clan members who helped raise the children of other clan members.

I don't disagree with this. However I fail to see where the supposed natural desires of a man for a man contribute anything to this helper phenomenon.

You haven't, I was commenting on the origin of "that ain't natural" arguments and how it was used to invent "crimes against nature".
How does one decide what is natural? Its far too subjective and leads to ludicrous arguments.

That's why I outlined the fundamental assumption as all animals have the natural desire to propagate their kind. I agree, an argument like this is not the basis upon which a society should enact laws, which is why I have refrained from saying that everyone who engages in these activities ought to be arrested.

However, when the question is what is best for a society, then that is quite another matter altogether. Then one can make arguments according to nature.

For example, if we say "natural" is defined by the majority's behavior ala heterosexuality vs homosexuality, then what do we say about the behavior of minority's we like or support?

That is why I did not start with the assumption that whatever the majority believes and practices is natural.

Is this not true for emotional attachments as well? The desire to love and be loved is natural, true?

I can't disagree with you. However, if we first accept the principle that it is natural for an animal to propagate their kind then that raises serious questions as to the means in which people acquire these emotional attachments.

Not assembly Inherent to our individual liberty is the right to make contacts, to cooperate with others.

Darn, you did catch that. At least someone reads what I was writing.

You are correct that a fundamental aspect of individual liberty is the freedom of assembly, and that we cannot be deprived of our right to make contacts and cooperate with each other.

However, nowhere does it say that freedom of assembly must be expressed in marriage. For sure, if someone were to arrest gay men from having sex with each other, that would be a violation of assembly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your scenario isn't "plausible" Ben. It's possible, since all sorts of horrible **** happens in this world, but that doesn't make it at all likely.

Excuse me, if horrible **** happens in this world, then yes it is likely for horrible **** to happen. Fact of life.

It's the creation of a person who actually believes that homosexual = pedophile. Or at least that homosexuals are predisposed to be pedophiles. It's silly, but hey, so are many of your beliefs.

Where did I make that association? Did I ever use the word 'pedophile' until just now? No. Did I ever say that homosexual men are predisposed to be pedophiles? No.

In fact, if you actually read what I said I make a very important clarification. Do I not say, 'that suppose the boy was too young for his tastes?' That's an explicit rejection of the connection that you accuse me of making.

Please, quote me where I say homosexuals are pedophiles.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did your beliefs magically change the day you were confirmed? What precepts of Catholicism did you not believe the day before your confirmation that you did believe the day after?

A better question would be, what beliefs changed over the course of the years prior to where I finally decided to become Catholic?

Of course, why would one expect confirmation to magically change your beliefs. It is a public commitment you are making to show where your beliefs lie. If was unwilling to accept the teachings of the Catholic church, then I was not ready to be confirmed.

[Arrian]

Excuse me, if horrible **** happens in this world, then yes it is likely for horrible **** to happen. Fact of life.

And this constitutes some sort of argument for or against something? Bah. It's meaningless.

As for the pedophilia thing, Ben, you've used theoretical examples like this in the past. It seems that it comes up in every gay marriage thread. Over and over the connection is made. Of course, you deny connecting the two, as that would be too blatant. Deny all you want. I simply do not believe you. So I call bull****.

Hmm... am I really bored enough to search through old gay marriage threads...

/me ponders the question

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


A better question would be, what beliefs changed over the course of the years prior to where I finally decided to become Catholic?

Of course, why would one expect confirmation to magically change your beliefs. It is a public commitment you are making to show where your beliefs lie. If was unwilling to accept the teachings of the Catholic church, then I was not ready to be confirmed.

Then why bring up the rediculous assertion that your beliefs would have changed after you were confirmed?

[MrFun]

BK, I know it's hard to keep up with discussion with multiple people in this thread, but get back to me about my conscience argument whenever you can.

You replied to my first conscience argument post, but then I replied to your reply -- let's start where we left it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben - This is really very simple. You believe that a loving mother/father arrangement is the absolute best thing for a child. You don't -- can't -- know.

Sure I can. I am making a rational argument. If you require empirical evidence, that is an entirely different matter, and I certainly can acquire statistical evidence in favour of my argument that kids do better with their mother and father, then with any other alternative.

I'd certainly accept the notion that, all else being equal, a two-parent family has more chance of success than a one-parent family. There are rational, materialist arguments to be made for such an idea; a two parent family has greater potential access to both time and money for a child, and that makes a difference.

Okay. Now, this again, is why it is so important to ask the question as to whether men and women are interchangeable parts. If there are fundamental differences between men and women, then it makes sense to say that a mother cannot be as good a father in general then she will be a mother. Why does society have different expectations for both roles? I don't think it is because of the society. Although the roles will change in some ways over time, there are certain parts that remain the same. If we accepted your argument that these roles are merely constructs, then we should not expect to see these similiarities across time and cultures.

But we absolutely cannot know what difference the sexes of the two parents make. Maybe someday, if gay childrearing becomes common enough, we will be able to. But your belief in this has about as much validity as your belief in, say, the Virgin Birth. You can't know; you can only ever believe.

Actually, yes I can. I can see from my own parents, and from the experiences of others. I can see how different daughters are from sons, and how daughters and mothers have different relationships then between fathers and sons.

Here's my experience, as a straight parent and as a friend of gay parents: what matters is good, loving parenting, period. It doesn't matter that both parents are men, or both women. It doesn't matter if one parent is Christian and the other Jewish, or if one is black and one is white; those combinations, too, were once forbidden by law because well-meaning religious people like yourself saw them as both unnatural and as putting the child at a disadvantage. We reject that thinking now, and rightly.

So why not answer the question as to why we see more single moms then dads. If there really is no difference between men and women, then why do so many women end up caring for their children while their dads abandon them?

There's only one way being the child of loving gay parents ever puts a child at a disadvantage, and that's when people judge his family based on nothing more than its composition. The question is, then: are you actually part of the problem? Think about it.

Actually, I'd rather see boys have a chance to learn how men are supposed to behave from their fathers, and the same with daughters and their mothers. Not having this is a disadvantage, regardless of whether you have a single mom, or a lesbian couple.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why bring up the rediculous assertion that your beliefs would have changed after you were confirmed?

Because they have.

Just not in a day.

[Kontiki]

So let's summarize:

If it was about religion, then your beliefs would have changed after your confirmation. But your beliefs didn't change around your confirmation, they changed over the course of years when you decided to become a Catholic. That's why if it was about religion, we'd expect your beliefs to change after your confirmation.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber:

I don't think anyone has the right to adopt, although anyone that impregnates someone has some parental rights to lose.

True, one can lose the rights.

On adoption why couldn't a single unmarried man be allowed to adopt if he can pass all the hurdles that social services can bring. My understanding is that there are often unadopted children out there.

Older kids. But the question this raises is an interesting one. Why don't adoption agencies allow single unmarried men to adopt kids? I don't think we can get away from the point that it is not considered in the best interests of the children involved. Especially with the older children who need to have someone look after them due to disability.

I would think most single men would be too busy working to spend time looking after the children they adopt. This is why I think the adoption agencies look for married couples, husband and wife, because they feel this is the best environment for the kids in their care.

If I were ranking I would certainly go for the couples first. on the theory that parenting is hard work two is better than one.

If it were my son, I would want him in the best available placement. If that were with a straight couple great, If it were with a gay couple also great.

I'd put one either with family or close friends, since I know a few couples that wouldn't mind taking in another kid.

[Ben Kenobi]

If it was about religion, then your beliefs would have changed after your confirmation. But your beliefs didn't change around your confirmation, they changed over the course of years when you decided to become a Catholic. That's why if it was about religion, we'd expect your beliefs to change after your confirmation.

1. My beliefs about gay marriage have not changed.

2. My religion has changed after my confirmation

3. Ergo, my beliefs about gay marriage do not rest solely upon my religious convictions.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You gave a scenario, I gave another plausible scenario. I said nothing about gay people being more likely to be pedophiles, all I said is that abuse is a plausible outcome of your scenario, nothing more nothing less. So please, if you have an argument, argue on what I have said and don't put words into my mouth.

It is no more plausable than the following...

A christian family... the Father dies... the mother takes another husband... and the husband adopts the wifes children. All allowable... and then starts forcing the young girls into having sex with him...

Are these girls better off because they have a traditional two parent male/female family?
Or would it be better for the children to be raised by a loving gay couple?

This is a very plausable story... happens all the time... probably 100's of times more than a gay couple abusing their children.

[Ben Kenobi]

I reject your base assertion that every child born is wanted. Many are retained due to a fear or rejection of abortion, spousal or societal pressure or whatever.

So societal pressure forces women to have children against their will. Now, let me ask you, in an abortion who else would know of the abortion other then the mother? She is not required to tell anyone in order to get one. It seems to me that your 'fear of abortion' could also be worded quite differently. Why would the woman fear the abortion if she didn't also love her child? Isn't abortion supposed to be safe and legal?

I would say that if people have to take additional and intentional steps to have a child, it increases the chances that that child will be desired and loved.

As opposed to a woman who has to carry the child for nine months, and decides to keep the child? Both are additional and intentional steps. Yet abuse happens.

Also in the adoption world-- there are at least some checks and balances and atempts to assess fitness . . . whereas any idiot can get pregnant and get to keep the child until unfitness is clear

So if any idiot can get pregnant, why don't those same idiots get an abortion? Wantedness does nothing to reduce the abuse, and many have said that just because the child is wanted, that it puts considerable pressure on the child to live up to the parent's expectations.

[Ben Kenobi]

A christian family... the Father dies... the mother takes another husband... and the husband adopts the wifes children. All allowable... and then starts forcing the young girls into having sex with him...

This is a sick argument

Thank you for admitting there is absolutely no difference between this example and the one that I brought up.

This is a very plausable story... happens all the time... probably 100's of times more than a gay couple abusing their children.

Now, notice I made no assessment of whether one was more plausible then the other. Nowhere did I say that it was more likely or less likely, since that is really irrelevant. All that matters is that both are plausible outcomes of that particular scenario.

I agree, that your example happens more frequently, but you also have to ask yourself the proportions. If there are more gay people then straight people, then you would expect to see situations involving gay people occur much more frequently.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's the wonderful thing about the phrase, "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There are a myriad of natural rights that are implicit in that statement. What natural rights are people entitled to, in order to fulfill their "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

I can say that I have the right to eat pink pistachio ice cream, but that doesn't mean there exists such a right in the constitution.

I would argue that one of those innate rights is the right to our own conscience and self-identification.

Ok, so I must then ask you to clarify what you mean by a 'right to self-identification' since there is no such right recognised. You have to remember that rights do not emerge from a vacuum, if you sincerely believe in the concept of a natural right, then a society does not construct these rights. So which do you believe, Mr. Fun? Are rights a societal construct or are they natural and recognised by civil society?

You argue that we choose to be straight or gay by our action to have sex with someone either of the same gender or someone of the opposite gender.

Yes I do, because I am trying to force the question as to what constitutes the nebulous concept of 'orientation'

I argue that sexual orienation is more innate than merely what we do in regards to our sex life. I am a gay man 24 hours a day, seven days a week, twelve months of the year -- rest assured I am not having sex with another man that often.

Ok, so if being gay is a religion rather then having anything to do with your sexuality, what is stopping people who sleep with women from claiming they are in fact gay?

If we followed your fallacious "logic" I'm only gay when I'm having sex with another man then you're only straight when you have sex with a woman. That does not make sense to me.

True, but the argument is usually that if someone desires to sleep with men, that they are gay, regardless of whether they choose to indulge in these pleasures.

Now, having cleared that ground, back to my concept of right to conscience and self-identification. Given my argument that sexual orientation is more innate and part of my identity throughout my daily life, rather than just when I'm having sex, it's part of who I am -- it's part of the many other identities and roles I have in my enriched, full life.

So being gay is a religion then, and has nothing to do with your sexual practice. A religion like being buddhist or hindu.

You are treading on dangerous ground -- you're trying to justify denying people their right to their conscience which is fundamentally so innate as to be part of being human.

Not at all. I am merely asking you to clarify this concept of sexual orientation so that those of us who are outside of enlightenment can come to the proper understanding.

If sexual orientation is based upon freedom of conscience, then this also means several other things.

First of all, you should expect conversions. People should be able to convert to the gay faith and then leave the gay faith.

Secondly, as part of conscience, you cannot be born with the quality. If people are born gay, then it cannot be a matter of conscience.