Homosexual Marriage

[turningitred]

Quote by: Anna It does stricke me as strange that those who are uncomfortable with gay relationships are constantly advising those who are both comfortable and happy to seek counselling. Would it not stand to reason that the person suffering discomfort should be the one seeking counselling?

That was my point exactly.

[RickSp]

Quote by: pikatore I've had people attack the nature of my claim, but none have so far put anything forward to oppose it. Get used to my insulting and foolish behaviour. You'll find that it sometimes rings true.

What is to oppose? You have offered nothing but your own biases and demonstrated out that you know basic anatomy. Big deal. If you have an argument to make, make it. So far, all I've seen is drivel.

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I doesn’t turn the stomachs of those that indulge in such activities. Your opinion is no more valid than theirs; in fact it is less valid because their activity is not affecting you in any way. It doesn't turn the stomachs of those who engage in it as a erotic fetish? No joking? Perhaps that's why I said I assume it has some kind of erotic value to those people and not a revultion factor? Comprende? No, that’s not the case. Homosexual activity between animals is not limited to situational events brought about to exert dominance. Studies show that some animals have an unconditional preference for the same sex, regardless of the situation. Male penguin couples for example have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg. I didn't say my explanation was one hundred percent inclusive. You,on the other hand, have said it is not the case,ever. I will quote"No,that's not the case". I would like to know what you base this on. My basis is a first hand witnessing of the event I described and numerous accounts of it brought up by various people."most of the people I know love and own dogs" I also ask you for a link for some of these"studies" you speak of. What grounds have you to believe that homosexuality is below the level of heterosexuality? Your claim that it is unnatural has been refuted, so why are homos below heteros in your mind? I don't. What I said here was a direct reply to what "Turningtired" wrote. Here, I will cut-paste it for you."By this I think that we can level ourselves as a race with the animal kingdom as well." My race,being a human, IMO cannot be leveled to with the animal kingdom with her example. You did earn 50 Strawman points with your attempt though.Congratulations. I would also like to see this omnipotent refute you speak of but first I will re-read your agreeance with me above and I qoute"Working from your obscure definition of nature, homosexuality is indeed unnatural. But so what?" This is a debate forum. If that’s as far as your opinion goes, this probably isn’t the place for you. Yes,yes you are right it is not an agreement forum. Equality. Please give me examples.

.........

[Jack]

Nice quote. Was there something you were going to say about it?

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy So when you say nature, you don’t actually mean nature; you mean the biological ability to continue the species. Working from your obscure definition of nature, homosexuality is indeed unnatural. But so what? By that rationale, you would oppose any kind of lifestyle which does not involve having children. You would then I assume wish to prevent infertile couples from marrying, and indeed make reproduction mandatory in all marriages? To start I will quote my entire first post on Volvonvo it also being my first post on this thread."Homosexuality,as it is defined,is a consious decision to scoff at the fundamental purpose of life. That purpose is to continue on, a process that has been around for quite some time. Homosexuality is un-natural and a same sex marriage should not be endorsed by any religious or govrnmental institutions.IMHO Nobody has the right to tell me what I need to accept as "normal/natural" when in fact it is not" Now, onto your Strawman. No I wouldn't oppose a couple,one in which one or both is infertile, getting married. There is a difference herein I hope I do not need to explain and no I wouldn't make reproduction madatory. If you believe natural to simply mean able to reproduce, why are you so opposed to anything unnatural? Because I do not see in my daily life "We are a hetero sterile/opting out of parenthood couple/person" bumper stickers,hats,T-shirts,parades or legal motions telling me I need to accept it. I'm against being told what I need to accept if I do not agree with it. I just prefer people to say what they mean instead of using terms incorrectly .

"Mother Nature" cannot be used metaphorically? Since when?

[Elminister]

Quote by: Isherwood Nice quote. Was there something you were going to say about it?

What he said is boxed,what I said is not. Here is a tissue for your glasses.

[Yarnspnr]

The way I see it, there are only two reasons a person would try to keep two people of the same sex from marrying. The first is homophobia. A phobia is simply an illogical and inexplicable fear, in this case aimed at a specific group of people. Since the civil war, the Supreme Court has not upheld any laws where the majority sets itself against a specific minority. It has consistently stated that such laws are unconstitutional and have no standing in an American society that promotes liberty and justice for all.

The second reason is based in religion. Whether it's the Bible or the Koran or whatever, people feel their God supports heterosexual marriage and condemns homosexual relationships. There's nothing wrong with holding this kind of religious belief until you make it a law that others who don't agree with your convictions must abide by. This is why DOMA and state constitutional laws that forbid same-sex marriage will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In America, there is no other option.

People first came to this country to get away from governments who tried to tell them how to celebrate their religion. That's why religious freedom is guaranteed in our Constitution. So if the Catholic church wants to forbid gay marriage, that's fine. There are many other denominations that will marry gays and lesbians in the United States. But when the government forbids it - that's another story altogether. The laws that disallow same-sex unions fly in the face of religious freedom.

I'm 59 years old and married to a wonderful woman. I spent six years in the US Navy. I've taught adult Sunday-School classes for many years. I believe in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no religion in the world that can alter or modify the meaning of these words. They are absolute in the United States of America.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Elminister It doesn't turn the stomachs of those who engage in it as a erotic fetish? No joking? Perhaps that's why I said I assume it has some kind of erotic value to those people and not a revultion factor? Comprende?

Right, so your statement that it turns your stomach was totally irrelevant, since you acknowledge that your opinion of it is indeed nothing more than an opinion.

Quote by: Elminister I didn't say my explanation was one hundred percent inclusive.

In which case it is irrelevant.

Quote by: Elminister You,on the other hand, have said it is not the case,ever. I will quote"No,that's not the case". I would like to know what you base this on. My basis is a first hand witnessing of the event I described and numerous accounts of it brought up by various people."most of the people I know love and own dogs"

You are, I assume not an expert in animal psychology. What makes you so sure that the homosexual act was an act of dominance?

Quote by: Elminister I also ask you for a link for some of these"studies" you speak of.

Animal Sexuality

It’s in there somewhere.

Quote by: Elminister I don't. What I said here was a direct reply to what "Turningtired" wrote. Here, I will cut-paste it for you."By this I think that we can level ourselves as a race with the animal kingdom as well." My race,being a human, IMO cannot be leveled to with the animal kingdom with her example.

Ok, so what exactly IS your reason for opposing homosexuality? Seriously, you have not given one single reason for opposing it.

Quote by: Elminister I would also like to see this omnipotent refute you speak of but first I will re-read your agreeance with me above and I qoute"Working from your obscure definition of nature, homosexuality is indeed unnatural. But so what?"

You can make anything true if you incorrectly redefine the terms. Working from the correct definition of nature, homosexuality is entirely natural. As for your definition, it is only relevant if I we are indeed working from it, which we were not at the time of the post.

Quote by: Elminister Yes,yes you are right it is not an agreement forum.

Yes, and when there is a disagreement, it is standard practice for each side to justify their stance instead of saying “I don’t agree with it and I don’t have to”. That is not debate.

Quote by: Elminister Please give me examples.

Ummm…the right to marry according to preference? Heteros can marry who they want; homos can’t. Inequality.

Quote by: Elminister Now, onto your Strawman. No I wouldn't oppose a couple,one in which one or both is infertile, getting married. There is a difference herein I hope I do not need to explain and no I wouldn't make reproduction madatory.

There is no difference if your objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural, unnatural having been defined as unable to reproduce.

Quote by: Elminister Because I do not see in my daily life "We are a hetero sterile/opting out of parenthood couple/person" bumper stickers,hats,T-shirts,parades or legal motions telling me I need to accept it. I'm against being told what I need to accept if I do not agree with it.

Totally avoiding the issue. This issue isn’t whether you like the vocal aspects of the gay rights movement; it’s about whether you accept homosexuality. If you can’t justify your rejection of it, there really isn’t much point in you being here.

Quote by: Elminister "Mother Nature" cannot be used metaphorically? Since when?

It would be nice if when we were wrong we could simply say “oh, it was a metaphor”. Had you stated your definition of nature before using the word, it could have been in the very broadest sense considered a metaphor. However, you didn’t define the word. You were simply incorrect.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Elminister This debate would be silly, to say the least.

Why? You and I hold different opinions about the 'purpose' of genitalia and body orifices. Sounds like am arguable topic to me.

Quote by: Elminister What would the purpose of a pointer be in this wouldbe thread? What does it do?

I'm monitoring this thread. If you start a new topic about this 'purpose' business, then putting a pointer here tells me (and others) where to find the new topic. I don't browse the thousands of threads folks start here, so providing a pointer is a courtesy.

Quote by: Elminister Go ahead and you set the table. I will at least sit and see what you have to say.

Nuh uh. Your assertion, your obligation to get the ball rolling elsewhere.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Yarnspnr The way I see it, there are only two reasons a person would try to keep two people of the same sex from marrying. The first is homophobia. A phobia is simply an illogical and inexplicable fear, in this case aimed at a specific group of people. Since the civil war, the Supreme Court has not upheld any laws where the majority sets itself against a specific minority. It has consistently stated that such laws are unconstitutional and have no standing in an American society that promotes liberty and justice for all. The second reason is based in religion. Whether it's the Bible or the Koran or whatever, people feel their God supports heterosexual marriage and condemns homosexual relationships. There's nothing wrong with holding this kind of religious belief until you make it a law that others who don't agree with your convictions must abide by. This is why DOMA and state constitutional laws that forbid same-sex marriage will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In America, there is no other option. People first came to this country to get away from governments who tried to tell them how to celebrate their religion. That's why religious freedom is guaranteed in our Constitution. So if the Catholic church wants to forbid gay marriage, that's fine. There are many other denominations that will marry gays and lesbians in the United States. But when the government forbids it - that's another story altogether. The laws that disallow same-sex unions fly in the face of religious freedom. I'm 59 years old and married to a wonderful woman. I spent six years in the US Navy. I've taught adult Sunday-School classes for many years. I believe in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no religion in the world that can alter or modify the meaning of these words. They are absolute in the United States of America.

That's really brought tears to my eyes.

Marriage and religion are two completly different things. Sure, different religions marry couples in different ceremonies, but you fail to take into account the other things that come with it. The legal binding involved, things such as benefits, etc, not to mention that marriage has been chiefly in the heterosexuals domain.

Why aren't people allowed to marry thier pets, if they love each other so much? hmm? If you guys want to talk about marriage and discrimination, then what makes human to human love so special, as opposed to human to dog love?

[italiangm]

Quote by: pikatore Why aren't people allowed to marry thier pets, if they love each other so much? hmm? If you guys want to talk about marriage and discrimination, then what makes human to human love so special, as opposed to human to dog love?

I'd consider allowing dogs to marry humans when:

[1] a dog's inalienable rights are added to the various founding documents
[2] a dog can say"I do"
[3] a dog can sign the application for marriage

[Yarnspnr]

Quote by: pikatore Marriage and religion are two completly different things. Sure, different religions marry couples in different ceremonies, but you fail to take into account the other things that come with it. The legal binding involved, things such as benefits, etc, not to mention that marriage has been chiefly in the heterosexuals domain.

Unfortunately, the way same-sex marriage is argued, it's near impossible to divorce religion from the topic, Pikatore. Why would anyone care about other American citizens receiving the benefits of marriage? Seems rather unamerican to me even to bring such a thing to mind, let alone make a law about it. Where does that stop? No benefits for Muslems that marry? How about lawyers, no benefits for them if they marry? Silly, isn't it. Why extend that to homosexuals if you're not a homophobe?

Marriage being chiefly heterosexual (in this country at any rate) has nothing to do with anything. I can name you hundreds of laws that used to be on the books for decades but have been ruled unconstitutional and have been erased. If there is a difference between State sanctioned marriage and religious sanctioned marriage, what's all the fuss about? If you're a Catholic and want to believe my marriage is void in God's eyes, I can't stop you. And that's fine with me. But the State's sanction is different. That sanction is under rule of law. And the law says we share rights equally in this Country. Of course, you could go live in Iran where their religion calls for the death of homosexuals let alone disallowing them the right to marry.

Either homosexuals are American citizens, or they are not. You can't have it both ways in this country.

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Right, so your statement that it turns your stomach was totally irrelevant, since you acknowledge that your opinion of it is indeed nothing more than an opinion. Sure. We have irrelevant and redundant. Guess which one yours is In which case it is irrelevant. No, it carries some weight. Though not a homosexual act I have both seen and also heard of female dogs mounting males and also female dogs. So where do you want to go with that one? You are, I assume not an expert in animal psychology. What makes you so sure that the homosexual act was an act of dominance? Because I have seen the interaction between the two canines before and after said act and also because I can read...."Although humping is considered a sexual action, it can also be used to signal power and rank. Dogs do, in effect, employ humping as a way of asserting authority. Whatever the motivation, when humping is directed toward peoples' legs, or objects in the environment, the result is the same: "...But don't argue with me about it Baconguy, go ahead and argue with people who know. Humping Animal Sexuality It’s in there somewhere. I'll check this out after I'm finished dicing your post. Ok, so what exactly IS your reason for opposing homosexuality? Seriously, you have not given one single reason for opposing it. Oppose homosexuality? I have gay friends, Hell, I even have a few gay relatives. I veiw it as unnatural and not for me but if it makes somebody else happy I'm fine with it,keep it to yourselves. I'm un-happy with it when it is shoved in my face daily I.E...hats,bumper stickers ect..When my government,I'll say this again being a tax paying voting citizen of this Nation yes it is indeed my government too, is leaned apon by the gay community to endorse something I don't agree with"this topic" You can make anything true if you incorrectly redefine the terms. Working from the correct definition of nature, homosexuality is entirely natural. As for your definition, it is only relevant if I we are indeed working from it, which we were not at the time of the post . When I said this "Homosexuality,as it is defined,is a consious decision to scoff at the fundamental purpose of life. That purpose is to continue on, a process that has been around for quite some time. Homosexuality is un-natural and a same sex marriage should not be endorsed......." in the first post I made here and was questioned about it or prompted for further explanation what on Earth made you think that when I used the encompassing words "Mother Nature" just what did you think I was trying to expand apon? By your definition my own aversion to homosexuality as a choice in lifestyle,along with everybody else who thinks so, is natural. Yes, and when there is a disagreement, it is standard practice for each side to justify their stance instead of saying “I don’t agree with it and I don’t have to”. That is not debate. When I see anything that even romotely starts to sway my veiws then we can start to debate. It's been fifteen years and counting. Ummm…the right to marry according to preference? Heteros can marry who they want; homos can’t. Inequality. Homosexuals want to get married just like hetero couples do....Say that several times,out loud, and the differences just might sink in,maybe. There is no difference if your objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural, unnatural having been defined as unable to reproduce. Apparently I do need to explain. Here is your question I replied to" By that rationale, you would oppose any kind of lifestyle which does not involve having children. You would then I assume wish to prevent infertile couples from marrying, and indeed make reproduction mandatory in all marriages?" Your "any kind of lifestyle" also includes heterosexuals and that's what I went with. Now here is the difference that I have to point out. If one or both in a hetero couple is completely sterile it is not by choice. The "tube" tying procedure can be reversed for a woman as well as the vasectomy procedure for men. If you don't believe me,look it up. In this day and age a great many things are medically possible except these, a man bearing a child or a woman impregnating another woman with her sperm. Totally avoiding the issue. This issue isn’t whether you like the vocal aspects of the gay rights movement; it’s about whether you accept homosexuality. If you can’t justify your rejection of it, there really isn’t much point in you being here. Homosexuality is not for me. Ergo: I don't accept it. If I accept it, I would be saying it would be a possible route I could/have take/taken and it is not. It's that simple. The exact issue here is that I don't like it being thrown in my face and I don't like people leaning on my government for Gay marriage,as I said above. Some choices we make exclude us from things in the future. That is a<warning, vague word coming up> universal truth. It would be nice if when we were wrong we could simply say “oh, it was a metaphor”. Had you stated your definition of nature before using the word, it could have been in the very broadest sense considered a metaphor. However, you didn’t define the word. You were simply incorrect.

Read my ten posts worth of text,oh wait you already have. They are full of metaphor. Then feel free to not twist or put words in my mouth anymore,thanks.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Yarnspnr Unfortunately, the way same-sex marriage is argued, it's near impossible to divorce religion from the topic, Pikatore. Why would anyone care about other American citizens receiving the benefits of marriage? Seems rather unamerican to me even to bring such a thing to mind, let alone make a law about it. Where does that stop? No benefits for Muslems that marry? How about lawyers, no benefits for them if they marry? Silly, isn't it. Why extend that to homosexuals if you're not a homophobe? Marriage being chiefly heterosexual (in this country at any rate) has nothing to do with anything. I can name you hundreds of laws that used to be on the books for decades but have been ruled unconstitutional and have been erased. If there is a difference between State sanctioned marriage and religious sanctioned marriage, what's all the fuss about? If you're a Catholic and want to believe my marriage is void in God's eyes, I can't stop you. And that's fine with me. But the State's sanction is different. That sanction is under rule of law. And the law says we share rights equally in this Country. Of course, you could go live in Iran where their religion calls for the death of homosexuals let alone disallowing them the right to marry. Either homosexuals are American citizens, or they are not. You can't have it both ways in this country.

Even so, and I agree, what about the monetary implications? What about the "other" groups that are hanging in the aisles waiting for this to become law?

Where should it all be stopped, or should it be stopped? That's the million dollar question. Everybody has rights, but somehow they aren't really equal in the eyes of the law.

I don't agree that homosexuals have the same right of marriage since it was conceived for one man, one woman. It's true we may love whomever we like, and live with whomever we like, but in the eyes of the law that's as far as it can go.

I'm of the opinion that we will have to examine each situation in it's own right, and then make a decision. I don't believe this group will have the same rights until we do. Rights to some degree are bestowed.

[Yarnspnr]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Even so, and I agree, what about the monetary implications? What about the "other" groups that are hanging in the aisles waiting for this to become law? Where should it all be stopped, or should it be stopped? That's the million dollar question. Everybody has rights, but somehow they aren't really equal in the eyes of the law. I don't agree that homosexuals have the same right of marriage since it was conceived for one man, one woman. It's true we may love whomever we like, and live with whomever we like, but in the eyes of the law that's as far as it can go. I'm of the opinion that we will have to examine each situation in it's own right, and then make a decision. I don't believe this group will have the same rights until we do. Rights to some degree are bestowed.

Historically, Marilyn, the idea that marriage was conceived for one man, one woman is a mistruth. For thousands of years, women were considered the property of their parents. Those property rights were passed on to their mate through an act we refer to as marriage. The mate could have one wife or hundreds of wives. It wasn't until rather recently on the historical timeline that women and men could choose their mates in monogamous marriage. And in some nations, even today, that right is still legally withheld.

Indeed, rights are bestowed. The right of a black person to marry a white person has only legally been bestowed in America for a few decades. There are still some that don't like it. Change takes time. But this is America, and we have a history of realizing when we are wrong about something and changing it - even in the face of the majority. So it will be when this issue comes to the Supreme Court. As I stated earlier, homosexuals are either American citizens, with the same rights as every other American citizen, or they are not.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Yarnspnr Unfortunately, the way same-sex marriage is argued, it's near impossible to divorce religion from the topic, Pikatore. Why would anyone care about other American citizens receiving the benefits of marriage? Seems rather unamerican to me even to bring such a thing to mind, let alone make a law about it. Where does that stop? No benefits for Muslems that marry? How about lawyers, no benefits for them if they marry? Silly, isn't it. Why extend that to homosexuals if you're not a homophobe? Marriage being chiefly heterosexual (in this country at any rate) has nothing to do with anything. I can name you hundreds of laws that used to be on the books for decades but have been ruled unconstitutional and have been erased. If there is a difference between State sanctioned marriage and religious sanctioned marriage, what's all the fuss about? If you're a Catholic and want to believe my marriage is void in God's eyes, I can't stop you. And that's fine with me. But the State's sanction is different. That sanction is under rule of law. And the law says we share rights equally in this Country. Of course, you could go live in Iran where their religion calls for the death of homosexuals let alone disallowing them the right to marry. Either homosexuals are American citizens, or they are not. You can't have it both ways in this country.

Ok fair enough. I've looked deep inside myself, and put my finger on that niggling discomfort with the whole thing, and I think I'm just a bit homophobic. Apologies if I've caused any offence.

[Yarnspnr]

Quote by: pikatore Ok fair enough. I've looked deep inside myself, and put my finger on that niggling discomfort with the whole thing, and I think I'm just a bit homophobic. Apologies if I've caused any offence.

I doubt you've caused offence, Pikatore. Now that you've owned it, you can deal with it. It's time we all put away are fears of each other, and believe me, many homosexuals fear us as much as we fear them, and for good reason. But fear comes with a heavy price. It disrupts the good we can all accomplish in this country. Better we work as one for the good of all concerned. I think our children have come to a deeper understanding of this than ourselves. There's hope for all of us yet. Thanks!