In Defense of Marriage

[Jainarayan]

I never implied it was.
I wrote... "health consequences of homosexual sex."
Gay marriage involves couples of homosexual men, who engage in homosexual sex, including (but not limited to) anal sex, which has health risks, even in 2 healthy males.

Many gay male couples do not engage in anal sex. It's an argumentum ad ignorantium that we do.

Btw, heteros don't have anal sex?

 

[HeatherAnn]

No one in this country has the right to discriminate.

But they take that right when they kill innocent children in "legal" abortion killings, discriminating based on age.
They take that right when they deny a child a mother or father to cater to the sexaul deviations of 2 adults.

 

[beerisit]

But they take that right when they kill innocent children in "legal" abortion killings, discriminating based on age.
They take that right when they deny a child a mother or father to cater to the sexaul deviations of 2 adults.

How do you propose handling the problem of widows and widowers?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Righto...
Let's comb through this jungle of misplaced notions and faulty arguments shall we?

I hope "general religious debate" doesn't mean I can post only if it goes along with popular opinion.

Go to my dear.
We accept all kinds here.

It amazes me that people are so upset about some things that affect others, but don't give a rat's whatever about things like health consequences of homosexual sex & about the consequences for children of gay marriage.

I couldn't agree more...on the point that what people get up in arms about amazes me.
The rest of it...not so much.

Do you realize there are health risks involved, not just statisically (STDs & AIDS) but also anal fissures, bacterial infection, anal cancer & colon rupture? If 2 people understand these real risks & want to do it anyway - fine - but when kids get involved (as in legalizing gay marriage) I have a problem with it. Why would you want children to be adopted by couples practicing unhealthy practices when children imitate their parents?

So, given that your argument is concerning the health risks I suppose you would ban people, especially parents, from partaking in other potentially unhealthy activities, such as eating unhealthy, smoking, not working out, excessive drinking, driving a car and crossing the street.
I mean, I looked at the list of causes of death and anal sex isn't even in there. Of course, we could lump it in with sexually transmitted diseases which come in at .32 percent, but then we would have to ban all the types of behaviours that are related to the causes above it on the list.
And it's a pretty long list...

Link: List of causes of death by rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People think they're being nice to cater to the sexual deviations of others.

Heck, why stop there.
Let's ban ALL deviations!
Love cheddar?
Sorry pal, you're a deviant!
Like to get up in the middle of the night and eat pickles?
No can do because only 5.2 percent of the population actually like pickles.*
Really... Just because something is not done by the majority is not a good enough reason to ban it.

But it's not really nice, in the long run. Laws are intended for the good of all, especially future society - CHILDREN.

Cue appeal to emotion.

Children have a RIGHT to be raised by the 2 opposite sexes that created them.

I'm pretty sure the Unicef Convention only says 'parents'.
The genders of the parents in question aren't really discussed.

Gay marriage denies them either a mother or father, devaluing both parents, saying mothers or fathers are not really important. 2 dads or 2 moms are fine - when studies & common sense show that children need BOTH a mother & father...

Righto.
So we should ban single moms and dads then?
Or, maybe force them to marry/remarry a wife/husband as designated by the church or state?

Gay couples already have rights under laws like common law marriage and cohabitation agreements...

If they already have all the same rights, why not make the world a simpler place and just call all of it 'marriage' and ditch the whole separation of same-sex relationships VS opposite-sex relationships?

Oh, right... They DON'T have the same rights, do they?
Well, I guess the same-sex marriage proponents still have a point then.

There is no need to redefine marriage to include sexual deviations.

Honey, marriage has been redefined so many times over the centuries, I don't think including same-sex couples is going to do much harm.
I mean, do you really want to go back a thousand years on this issue?
Really?
Think about it.

In fact, doing so will harm many - including homosexuals (& others who are persuaded to be homosexual) by condoning statistically harmful behavior and by not giving children what they need most: BOTH a mother and father.

Driving a car is a statistically harmful behaviour.

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...

Didn't see that one on Unicef's list either.

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

So what?



*Yeah, I made that statistic up. So sue me...

 

[tumbleweed41]

But they take that right when they kill innocent children in "legal" abortion killings, discriminating based on age.
They take that right when they deny a child a mother or father to cater to the sexaul deviations of 2 adults.

Ignoring the strawman argument on abortion. (Unrelated)


The real reason for your objections raises it's ugly head.

"Sexual deviations"

 

[HeatherAnn]

Marriage between a man and a woman is based on the natural creative process of society.
Not a single person has come from 2 men or 2 women... ALL of us have come from the union of a sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.
It's simple!
And it's obvious that those who argue against this FACT, are in extreme denial.

Trying to change the definition of marriage to mean any 2 people, is like creating counterfeit money - degrading the real thing, & basing laws catoring to sexual deviations, rather than encouraging healthy behavior. It's also like changing a measuring system. It screws up the foundation of society - the family. This world is made up of both sexes - & children need to learn to relate well with both sexes, & need the unique relationships from mothers and fathers. Children are the major concern, however, others are also negatively impacted by legalizing gay marriage... Employers may be required to provide benefits to couples who statistically, don't stay together very long & change partners often.

Same sex couples already have rights under laws like Common Law Marriage and Cohabitation Agreements. The ONLY reason to try to redefine marriage is to try to demand society to be legally required to accept sexual deviations. And as mentioned in my previous post, where gay marriage has been legalized, rights of others have been infringed upon in the name of "gay rights."

 

[beerisit]

Marriage between a man and a woman is based on the natural creative process of society.
Not a single person has come from 2 men or 2 women... ALL of us have come from the union of a sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.
It's simple!
And it's obvious that those who argue against this FACT, are in extreme denial.

Trying to change the definition of marriage to mean any 2 people, is like creating counterfeit money - degrading the real thing, & basing laws catoring to sexual deviations, rather than encouraging healthy behavior. It's also like changing a measuring system. It screws up the foundation of society - the family. This world is made up of both sexes - & children need to learn to relate well with both sexes, & need the unique relationships from mothers and fathers. Children are the major concern, however, others are also negatively impacted by legalizing gay marriage... Employers may be required to provide benefits to couples who statistically, don't stay together very long & change partners often.

Same sex couples already have rights under laws like Common Law Marriage and Cohabitation Agreements. The ONLY reason to try to redefine marriage is to try to demand society to be legally required to accept sexual deviations. And as mentioned in my previous post, where gay marriage has been legalized, rights of others have been infringed upon in the name of "gay rights."

Are you stating that marriage is the only way that the human race can continue? Really?

 

[Storm]

Marriage between a man and a woman is based on the natural creative process of society.
Not a single person has come from 2 men or 2 women... ALL of us have come from the union of a sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.
It's simple!
And it's obvious that those who argue against this FACT, are in extreme denial.

Strawman. Nobody's argued any such thing.

Trying to change the definition of marriage to mean any 2 people, is like creating counterfeit money - degrading the real thing, & basing laws catoring to sexual deviations, rather than encouraging healthy behavior. It's also like changing a measuring system. It screws up the foundation of society - the family. This world is made up of both sexes - & children need to learn to relate well with both sexes, & need the unique relationships from mothers and fathers. Children are the major concern, however, others are also negatively impacted by legalizing gay marriage... Employers may be required to provide benefits to couples who statistically, don't stay together very long & change partners often.

Same sex couples already have rights under laws like Common Law Marriage and Cohabitation Agreements. The ONLY reason to try to redefine marriage is to try to demand society to be legally required to accept sexual deviations. And as mentioned in my previous post, where gay marriage has been legalized, rights of others have been infringed upon in the name of "gay rights."

Careful, your bigotry is seeping through.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Many gay male couples do not engage in anal sex. It's an argumentum ad ignorantium that we do.

Btw, heteros don't have anal sex?

Of course heteros have anuses and engage in anal sex also - & the same risks apply to them!

It is NOT a "ignorantaium" fallicy to say that male couples engage in anal sex.
Statistics gathered from doctors and health clinics show they do!

Homosexuality (deemed as "death" by an ex-homosexual & ex-gay rights leader) is NOT what we want to teach children, especially considering that statistically, (according to the US CDC) homosexual practices present risks... since homosexuals switch partners often, they are more likely to get STDs & AIDS (which 2 friends of mine died from).
http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/m ... ay2000.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/doc ... 08comp.pdf

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

 

[HeatherAnn]

Careful, your bigotry is seeping through.

Careful - your adhominem attack is seeping through.
When people call names to others, it reflects they have nothing better to contribute to the conversation.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Are you stating that marriage is the only way that the human race can continue? Really?

I never wrote that.
But nice try.

I'm not going to repeat what I wrote - just reread it, or look up or ask your parents how you were conceived.

 

[beerisit]

How did we get homosexuals if only heterosexuals can reproduce? I think your god may have ****** up.

 

[Storm]

Careful - your adhominem attack is seeping through.
When people call names to others, it reflects they have nothing better to contribute to the conversation.

Not my fault you're descending into incoherent vitriol as every attempt at persuasion gets shot down.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another logical fallacy: begging the question.

How was my post begging the question? The only logical fallacy I see is your red herring, conflating issues around adoption with marriage.

It is already clear that children benefit most by being raised by the 2 opposite sexes that created them.

It's also clear that in the case of any child who is up for adoption, those two people are not a viable option because they're dead, have given up the child, can't be located or have been determined to be unfit parents.

Children learn through their interactions with their mothers and fathers, how to get along with both sexes. When they are denied either a mother or a father, they miss out on a lot! (I refer to the many studies listed in my previous post regarding the need of both parents.)

What do they miss out on, exactly? Please be specific.

In any case, this is all irrelevant to the central question of same-sex marriage.

If we're talking about the US here (same-sex marriage is already legal nationwide here in Canada, so I assume this is a US-specific debate), then there are two options at play:

- the status quo: same-sex couples can adopt children, and some members of same-sex couples have their own biological children... though in states where same-sex marriage is still illegal, these families don't have the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

- same-sex marriage: all the same as above, except same-sex-parented families, including their children, get the benefits and protections of marriage.

Banning same-sex marriage harms the children of same-sex parents and helps no other children. Allowing same-sex marriage benefits the children of same-sex parents and harms no other children. If we're looking at this issue in terms of effects on children, then it's clear: allowing same-sex marriage is the best option.

 

[HeatherAnn]

That's not a real question, it is wizardry of the devil. I recommend more church for you sinner before it's too late

How did we get homosexuals if only heterosexuals can reproduce? I think your god may have ****** up.

I find these sarcastic comments on a "Religious Forum" about as telling as Moderators ganging up on, harrassing and personally attacking someone.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Marriage between a man and a woman is based on the natural creative process of society.
Not a single person has come from 2 men or 2 women... ALL of us have come from the union of a sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.
It's simple!
And it's obvious that those who argue against this FACT, are in extreme denial.

Trying to change the definition of marriage to mean any 2 people, is like creating counterfeit money - degrading the real thing, & basing laws catoring to sexual deviations, rather than encouraging healthy behavior. It's also like changing a measuring system. It screws up the foundation of society - the family. This world is made up of both sexes - & children need to learn to relate well with both sexes, & need the unique relationships from mothers and fathers. Children are the major concern, however, others are also negatively impacted by legalizing gay marriage... Employers may be required to provide benefits to couples who statistically, don't stay together very long & change partners often.

Same sex couples already have rights under laws like Common Law Marriage and Cohabitation Agreements. The ONLY reason to try to redefine marriage is to try to demand society to be legally required to accept sexual deviations. And as mentioned in my previous post, where gay marriage has been legalized, rights of others have been infringed upon in the name of "gay rights."

There it is again, "sexual deviation". This betrays your underlying reason for denying civil rights to LGBT's.

You have no leg to stand on concerning the children, there is overwhelming evidence from qualified psychologists that children of same sex couples do not suffer from the experience, other than from the bullying of bigots.

You simply want to deny civil rights based on your own personal 'ick factor'.

 

[beerisit]

I never wrote that.
But nice try.

I'm not going to repeat what I wrote - just reread it, or look up or ask your parents how you were conceived.

Oh yes you did.

Marriage between a man and a woman is based on the natural creative process of society.
Not a single person has come from 2 men or 2 women... ALL of us have come from the union of a sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.
It's simple!
And it's obvious that those who argue against this FACT, are in extreme denial.

 

[Storm]

I find this sarcastic comment on a "Religious Forum" about as telling as Moderators ganging up on, harrassing and personally attacking someone.

Oh, PLEASE! Your attack on the Staff is completely unwarranted, and while I seriously doubt anyone will take it for anything but the desperation it is, I'll take a moment to spell it out for you:

1) Staff are allowed to post in debates, too.
2) No one is harassing you. We're responding to your arguments, such as they are.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Oh yes you did.

WRONG.
Reread it, Beerisit.
Marriage isn't even mentioned as required to procreate, only that it's the natural reaction to the natural procreative process.

 

[beerisit]

WRONG.
Reread it, Beerisit.
Marriage isn't even mentioned as required to procreate, only that it's the natural reaction to the natural procreative process.

In that case why is marriage so sacrosanct? If marriage is not required for the continuation of the species and is not necessary for heterosexuals, why do you want to ban it for homosexuals?