Marriage and sexuality

[sojourner]

However, people seem to think marriage is secular.

I'm people. I don't think that, nor should any Christian person, since we believe that all relationships are, in a sense, sacramental in nature.

 

[Mr Cheese]

What makes the supreme court an authority on a relationship that reflects God's love for us?
Why should the supreme court, operating under the Constitution, even join that argument if the thing in question is a religious sacrament?

because its a human rights issue also.....

I assume you're also against same sex marriages?

and madhatter is citing concepts that deny any religious reasoning,....

for this thread then, religious ideas have been replaced by "genetics".....

the crude simplistic idea that homosexuals cant breed, which therefore means they are and to quote "defects" (genetic) and actually damage the survival of the human race

of course as has been shown through various opinions and scientific research, this is hogwash, arguably these bigoted opinions are based on poorely argued logic... but then when is hatred ever spread with well thought out logic and reasoning? hardly ever,....

what we have heard in summary thus far is that:

homosexuals cant breed
Homosexuals are genetic defects
homosexuality is bad for society because:
It causes people to spend lots of money to try and change bigotted views
The purpose of marriage is to breed, without breeding the GDP of USA will be lowered.
Homosexuality is a behavioural issue, thus invalidating it alongside any other issue when it comes to discussing bigotry.

These ideas are supposed to be "proof" of how madhatter has won the argument. Yet reallly they are more likely to be proof that madhatter is a bigot, but only he knows that for sure, and you cant really tell online, but I'd be willing to say its a pretty safe bet

:clap

 

[Mr Cheese]

I'm people. I don't think that, nor should any Christian person, since we believe that all relationships are, in a sense, sacramental in nature.

who cares?

plenty of animals are in same sex couples....

and homosapiens are different?

also, the discussion, is one in which religion is niot a reasoning, madhatter is arguing for genetic reasons.....

because penises go in vaginas....

the reasoning is as simplistic and puerile as that

 

[Mr Cheese]

Conjecture is opinion

And the evidence presented only proves my position

um no the evidence points that homosexuality may actually improve fertility rates
in men and women

thus negating your entire ideas of homosexuals being

genetic defects
damaging to society as they wont help boost the GDP (lifeis about GDP isnt it???)

you see where puerile simplistic logic:

Penises go in vaginas, thats right, anything else is wrong

erxists

science in this example has actually found contrary

But thats life....

the simplest idea and answer is not always correct. Just because you assume "pensies go in vaginas, anythign else is bad" is correct logic.... reality tells us far differently. But you can deny it all you like..... as someone else stated, it does not make the contrary ideas to yours "disappear".....

 

[Mr Cheese]

I just regret that you are probably a registered voter.

sadly there are many more

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I know it drives my fiance wild to see me play with boys. Afterward I am guaranteed "fun time" with her. I would say that is improving the chances of fertility.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I know it drives my fiance wild to see me play with boys. Afterward I am guaranteed "fun time" with her. I would say that is improving the chances of fertility.

lol not my thing,,...but all power to you

 

[Autodidact]

Nothing presented with any credibility has conflicted with my statements.

The only things people have claimed have been personal opinion or unfounded comments.

And if someone does ask you a question that devastates your argument, you can always pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Kerr]

However, people seem to think marriage is secular.

Marriage can be both secular and religious. There is no one religion who owns the concept.

 

[Autodidact]

What makes the supreme court an authority on a relationship that reflects God's love for us?
Why should the supreme court, operating under the Constitution, even join that argument if the thing in question is a religious sacrament?

The relevance of the Supreme Court is that they have found that marriage is a fundamental right, directly contradicting madhatter's assertion that it is a privilege. He thinks if he repeats "fundamental to our existence and survival" often enough the actual holding will go away. Actually admitting he's wrong is against his religion.

 

[Autodidact]

Conjecture is opinion

And the evidence presented only proves my position

I'm sorry, I missed the post where you presented evidence. Could you cite it for us?

I on the other hand have cited the ample evidence that gay families are excellent environments in which to raise children, and am happy to cite the scores of studies in support of that assertion, as well as the official statements of every child welfare organization in the country.

 

[Kerr]

I know it drives my fiance wild to see me play with boys. Afterward I am guaranteed "fun time" with her. I would say that is improving the chances of fertility.

Rofl, see, a perfect example of increasing the chances of someone turning into a baby pooping factory .

 

[Autodidact]

That is actually a very good question. However, people seem to think marriage is secular. But that is also for a different debate. The reason i point this out is SSM pundits blatantly disregard not only the full sentence in the Loving v. Virginia ruling, but also forget that the Loving v. Virginia case was about ethnicity, to which homosexuality has nothing in common.

No, the case was about different-race marriage, which has a lot in common with same-sex marriage. And the sentence you keep repeating supports our argument. Marriage is a fundamental right because it is crucial to our survival, and so that right should be protected for everyone.

In other words, it's not that Joe's marriage to Lisa or Ann's marriage to Rachel is important to our survival, it's that the right of people to marry each other is.

And madhatter is still blissfully unaware (because he has me on ignore, due to being uncomfortable with facts cited in opposition to his religious views) that the Supreme Court has extended the same right in other circumstances, including prisoners.

 

[Autodidact]

I did respond to those posts. I cited sources for my arguments. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge them. The actual evidence in the studies posed by YamiB only support my position. The Conjecture however, is simply conjecture.

I missed the part where you answered people who asked you, over and over again, whether you oppose the right to marry for different-sex couples who are not planning on biological reproduction.

 

[madhatter85]

Must point out that you have done the same. It is all based in our value system, really, where I come from marriage and relationships is not first hand about children, it is about love. Where I come from sexuality is not just about children either, it can be many things. For pleasure, an expression of love, and so on. Our values are the basis of our opinions and often also shape in what way we look at the truth.

If it's about values at all then one cannot disregard the values of others no matter the basis of their belief. Which is why I am not arguing values or morality or religious belief. If one side wants to argue values based in any kind of belief. The other side is equally allowed the same privilege.

Humanity would not survive if everyone only had sex with the same sex, true (not counting artificial means and so). But homosexuality has never threatened to do this, infact it seems to appear naturally in many places in nature without every causing a specie to go extinct or even be a factor for that. Same sex marriages would not change this.

I am not saying homosexuality "Threatens" anyone. I am simply reinforcing the fact that as a society we are not required to give marital benefits based on the precident of why we gave marital benefits in the first place.

 

[Autodidact]

If it's about values at all then one cannot disregard the values of others no matter the basis of their belief. Which is why I am not arguing values or morality or religious belief. If one side wants to argue values based in any kind of belief. The other side is equally allowed the same privilege.

I well understand why you prefer to avoid this subject. It's hard when you're arguing against love and equality, to justify your values of discrimination. We all understand that your highest value is biological reproduction. And we think that's weird as heck. Nevertheless, you are free to have as many babies as you like, and we will still allow you to marry.

I am not saying homosexuality "Threatens" anyone. I am simply reinforcing the fact that as a society we are not required to give marital benefits based on the precident of why we gave marital benefits in the first place.

You might want to take another run at this sentence, it's didn't quite come together.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I am not saying homosexuality "Threatens" anyone.

I'm not a flip flopper, but....

 

[Mr Cheese]

I'm sorry, I missed the post where you presented evidence. Could you cite it for us?

I on the other hand have cited the ample evidence that gay families are excellent environments in which to raise children, and am happy to cite the scores of studies in support of that assertion, as well as the official statements of every child welfare organization in the country.

No, the case was about different-race marriage, which has a lot in common with same-sex marriage. And the sentence you keep repeating supports our argument. Marriage is a fundamental right because it is crucial to our survival, and so that right should be protected for everyone.

In other words, it's not that Joe's marriage to Lisa or Ann's marriage to Rachel is important to our survival, it's that the right of people to marry each other is.

And madhatter is still blissfully unaware (because he has me on ignore, due to being uncomfortable with facts cited in opposition to his religious views) that the Supreme Court has extended the same right in other circumstances, including prisoners.

I missed the part where you answered people who asked you, over and over again, whether you oppose the right to marry for different-sex couples who are not planning on biological reproduction.

I well understand why you prefer to avoid this subject. It's hard when you're arguing against love and equality, to justify your values of discrimination. We all understand that your highest value is biological reproduction. And we think that's weird as heck. Nevertheless, you are free to have as many babies as you like, and we will still allow you to marry.

.

highlighting added by me for emphasis

 

[Kerr]

If it's about values at all then one cannot disregard the values of others no matter the basis of their belief. Which is why I am not arguing values or morality or religious belief. If one side wants to argue values based in any kind of belief. The other side is equally allowed the same privilege.

You conclusions are based on your values, though. Just like it is with any other human being.

I am not saying homosexuality "Threatens" anyone. I am simply reinforcing the fact that as a society we are not required to give marital benefits based on the precident of why we gave marital benefits in the first place.

If it does not threaten anyone and will help with improving the tolerance in the society I would actually say it is required since it would be a good investment in the future of our society.

 

[madhatter85]

You conclusions are based on your values, though. Just like it is with any other human being.

But then you could debate values all day long, because not everyone is on the same moral high-ground. In order to debate this properly you have to remove all emotion, morals, and values to it and stick directly to the facts.

If it does not threaten anyone and will help with improving the tolerance in the society I would actually say it is required since it would be a good investment in the future of our society.

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.