Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[Gjallarhorn]

A woman has a biological need to attract a man.

Marriage enables her to keep that man.

However, a man does not have a biological need to attract a man, nor a woman to attract a woman.

Thus marriage is not necessary for them.

Love is not a real thing, it is only a passing fancy, therefore not a valid enough reason on it's own to get married.

However the potential of having a child, according to Nature's Holy Law, allows for marriage between man and woman.

Those with no intention or ability to have a child together naturally have no need to marry and thus the facility should be canceled for them.

Either you have never loved, or your companions have all been very lonely.

In any case, the concept of marriage has evolved. We no longer require marriage as a license to breed (well, most of us), but it still serves a purpose to the couple, from something as simple as a symbol of the bond to things like the right to see them when hospitalized.

If you want to continue arguing that is means ought, we should be lighting ourselves on fire (fire burns people, therefore fire should burn people) and killing children (children die from starvation, therefore children should die of starvation).

 

[9Westy9]

Homosexuality is becoming not only accepted, but even encouraged at times. I understand that many with same-sex preferences have been through hell. Many have been sexually abused. Many have been struggled with their feelings & many have been treated badly for their aparent or actual sexual preferences.
I believe it's important to love everyone, no matter what their preferences. Loving someone means to want the best for them, even if it means telling them truth they don't want to hear.

And many people have been sexually abused by heterosexual parents. What's your point?

Society's well being depends on the basic unit of society: family, which is based on marriage between a man and a woman.
Legal marriage is primarily for the benefit of society, especially the future of society: CHILDREN.

'Traditional' marriage has changed a lot - seattlepi.com

Children are created by a man and a woman.

Studies and common sense, show that children also thrive best by being raised by the 2 opposite sexes that created them (nature is wise).

Studies and common sense also show that couples of the same sex can allow children to thrive. I can give you an example if you really want.

Gay marriage denies the right for a child to have both a mother and father, & basically states, "Mothers aren't really important - 2 dads are ok, or Fathers aren't really important - 2 moms are ok." When this false!

What gay marriage says is that you don't need one man and one woman to raise children to thrive.

Another consideration is the health consequences of homosexual sex...Because statistically, homosexuals (both men and women) change partners more often and are less monogomous than heterosexuals, STDs and AIDS statistically are known to spread quickly among homosexuals, especially gay men...

So we should ban all homosexuals (including monogamous ones) from getting married and raising children?

We also know that anal sex is risky (for anal fissures, bacterial infection, colon rupture & anal cancer), even in 2 healthy males.

and so gay couples who don't have anal intercourse should also be stopped from marrying

Why would you want to legally place children with couples who engage in harmful behavior, when children learn most by imitation?

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexuality is not only harmful medically, but usually it is the product of psychological problems (except for rare instances ie hermaphrodites). We are born with brains that are only 25% developed, so that our brains can adapt to environmental influences & better survive.

outright lie.

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior.
2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
3. Older homosexuals often approach the young
4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions
6. Many change their sexual preferences
7. There are many ex-homosexuals"

1) Until you prove that there are no genetic difference then you point is pointless. Especially as research into the matter is ongoing.
2) Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and you also are excluding the homosexuals who don't.
4) the point?
5) I wonder why. Oh wait, it's because lots of religious parents openly condemn homosexual behaviour
6) Good luck proving that
7) Most of them just suppress their homosexual desires rather than change full circle.

Speaking of harassment, others' rights have been denied in order to cator to "gay rights"...

and many gay people have had their rights infringed upon in the name of religion

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon. Here are a few examples where those with homosexual preferences have pushed their assumed rights, which infringed on the rights of others...

Then children can opt out of learning it ffs. No one's forcing you to send your children to school.

*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

and there's something evil about all of these?

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.

People aren't encouraging heterosexual children to explore homosexuality they're encouraging children to be more open about their sexuality.

Also, others' rights have been infringed upon in favor of supporting gay rights.
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 even violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.

The only thing I've agreed with so far.

Same sex couples already have "rights" under common law marriage and cohabitation agreements. Legally redefining marriage is simply trying to legally force society to accept a minority's sexual deviations.

I don't usually use ad homs. but when bigots call homosexuals "minorities who deviate" when they don't choose to be homosexual is just insulting.

Please strive for what's best for society's emotional & physical health - especially society's future: children, by supporting their right to be raised by a mother AND father.
Please defend marriage as defined to be between a man and a woman!

and he ends with another appeal to emotion.

 

[9Westy9]

[youtube]LYMjXucTFaM[/youtube]
Is Homosexuality a Choice? - YouTube

 

[Road Warrior]

Is

Thanks for the reference and I agree with Hume.

"Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible."

 

[Road Warrior]

A woman has a biological need to attract a man.

Marriage enables her to keep that man.

However, a man does not have a biological need to attract a man, nor a woman to attract a woman.

Thus marriage is not necessary for them.

Love is not a real thing, it is only a passing fancy, therefore not a valid enough reason on it's own to get married.

That's just sad and it sounds like you've been hurt. While I agree the young girl idea of white knights and "Happily Ever After" are fanciful, the fact is love and attraction between people is indeed real. If your premise that marriage was simply to enable a woman to keep a man, it seems reasonable to me most men would want it outlawed....or at least expand it to polygamy.

 

[Kathryn]

A woman has a biological need to attract a man.

Marriage enables her to keep that man.

However, a man does not have a biological need to attract a man, nor a woman to attract a woman.

Thus marriage is not necessary for them.

Love is not a real thing, it is only a passing fancy, therefore not a valid enough reason on it's own to get married.

However the potential of having a child, according to Nature's Holy Law, allows for marriage between man and woman.

Those with no intention or ability to have a child together naturally have no need to marry and thus the facility should be canceled for them.

You bring up some interesting points. I don't agree with your application, but I can see how you got there.

Where I think it falls apart is when you begin to discuss love as if it is not a real thing. This is a very sad conclusion on your part and one that is not borne out in reality for many people, though it may be for you.

Your conclusion about love though does bring up a point I think we can agree on and that is this:

A person who does not believe in love as a reality, should never marry under the guise of love.

 

[nnmartin]

In any case, the concept of marriage has evolved. We no longer require marriage as a license to breed (well, most of us), but it still serves a purpose to the couple, from something as simple as a symbol of the bond to things like the right to see them when hospitalized.

A gold ring should suffice as a symbol, a piece of paper is rather bland though.

'Significant other' type rights could be drawn up in the case of hospital visits.

If you want to continue arguing that is means ought, we should be lighting ourselves on fire (fire burns people, therefore fire should burn people) and killing children (children die from starvation, therefore children should die of starvation).

That is one of the more pointless and absurd analogies I have come across.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

To be clear: man + woman does not necessarily = baby.....(sperm + egg) + gestation = baby.

Heterosexual unprotected sex during ovulation in childbearing years is the most efficient way to make babies. But to limit procreation to simple gender differentiation and coupling, then labeling it as mechanistic in nature, is leaving out a lot of details.

For example: post-menopausal woman + man =/= baby.

Just for starters.

 

[nnmartin]

If your premise that marriage was simply to enable a woman to keep a man, it seems reasonable to me most men would want it outlawed....or at least expand it to polygamy.

I think that is probably the case deep down.

Most men would take on mistresses if they were able to and could get away with it.

It's just the Nature of Man.

Man has a need to sow - to reproduce himself in true narcissistic fashion.

Most men would be happy with several wives but the other way around would be clearly impossible and also against the Order of Nature.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think that is probably the case deep down.

Most men would take on mistresses if they were able to and could get away with it.

It's just the Nature of Man.

Man has a need to sow - to reproduce himself in true narcissistic fashion.

Most men would be happy with several wives but the other way around would be clearly impossible and also against the Order of Nature.

Here we go again....

Your argument is based on the patriarchal bias toward male political, familial, and cultural power and not so much on biology.

Women fool around too. A lot.

 

[nnmartin]

You bring up some interesting points. I don't agree with your application, but I can see how you got there.

good to see we have some agreement of sorts, on something.

A person who does not believe in love as a reality, should never marry under the guise of love.

of course, this begs the next question, which is:

Is homosexual love a reality?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

A gold ring should suffice as a symbol, a piece of paper is rather bland though.

'Significant other' type rights could be drawn up in the case of hospital visits.



That is one of the more pointless and absurd analogies I have come across.

I agree about the rights. I don't think marriage should be governmental.

As for the analogy, you are saying since marriage used to be about procreation, marriage should always be about procreation. That's the same as saying since women used to not be able to vote, women should never have been allowed to vote.

Times change, and we change with them.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

good to see we have some agreement of sorts, on something.



of course, this begs the next question, which is:

Is homosexual love a reality?

Yes. Next question.

 

[Kathryn]

good to see we have some agreement of sorts, on something.



of course, this begs the next question, which is:

Is homosexual love a reality?

Absolutely. That's my opinion.

 

[nnmartin]

To be clear: man + woman does not necessarily = baby.....(sperm + egg) + gestation = baby.

Heterosexual unprotected sex during ovulation in childbearing years is the most efficient way to make babies.

This is nature's intended mechanism for making a baby, so it must clearly be the correct method.

Yes, we can short circuit the natural laws by egg donation and the like but this does not change the fact that we still need man and woman for child.

Nature is infinitely cleverer than man and his machines - thus respect should be given to it.

So we should base marriage on either humanistic natural laws or that of the Holy power of God.

We should not base it on the unholy power of avarice and convenience.

 

[nnmartin]

Here we go again....

Your argument is based on the patriarchal bias toward male political, familial, and cultural power and not so much on biology.

Women fool around too. A lot.

yes but they can only get pregnant once per time - so the biological needs are different.

The patriarchal bias merely reflects the intention of Nature.

For the atheist, Nature must be considered to be God.

 

[nnmartin]

I agree about the rights. I don't think marriage should be governmental.

As for the analogy, you are saying since marriage used to be about procreation, marriage should always be about procreation. That's the same as saying since women used to not be able to vote, women should never have been allowed to vote.

Times change, and we change with them.

that's a reasonable point to make and I started a thread earlier on that very subject - please feel free to take a look and add some thoughts.

'Should women be allowed to vote?' is the title.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2936822-post1.html

 

[nnmartin]

Yes. Next question.

Obviously love is a hard thing to prove, but having a child will cement the bond.

The natural bond that is of the union of the holy seed and egg - this is proof of God's infinite design on Nature.

The same reasoning holds true for the atheist - just take the God element out and you are still left with nature.

And everyone must agree that nature has a power of it's own which needn't necessarily be religious.

 

[Road Warrior]

I think that is probably the case deep down.

Most men would take on mistresses if they were able to and could get away with it.

It's just the Nature of Man.

Man has a need to sow - to reproduce himself in true narcissistic fashion.

Most men would be happy with several wives but the other way around would be clearly impossible and also against the Order of Nature.

If I understand you correctly, you believe marriage should be legally redefined to man + womanⁿ?

 

[nnmartin]

what do you mean 'redefined' - that is what it already is.

but, to avoid any sort of semantics, the YES - that is clearly how things should be.

If we are to continue in the vein of false Libertarianism that so many people seem to worship then of course, we could marry whoever or whatever we wanted to.

But falsity must be done away with as it is merely a short term gain that will ultimately end in the complete destruction of the marriage concept entirely.