Marriage Inequality

[ChrisP]

No man, you go to Ibiza in the dance season. June to end September, althought the island ia paradise all ylear round. Cafe Del Mar...

K

I hear Ibiza's fun, but it's further away than Goa and I don't like being surrounded by beautiful naked women. :sarcastic

Besides Goa's in Dec, Ibiza Sept-Nov, Goa Dec. All my bases covered.

 

[WillieHutch]

I hear Ibiza's fun, but it's further away than Goa and I don't like being surrounded by beautiful naked women. :sarcastic

Besides Goa's in Dec, Ibiza Sept-Nov, Goa Dec. All my bases covered.

what's so good about Goa in December? i never knew one month was better than another month for that scene. (but i also didnt know Goa was still cool cause i havent heard of people going there for years)

 

[Kowalski]

I hear Ibiza's fun, but it's further away than Goa and I don't like being surrounded by beautiful naked women. :sarcastic

Besides Goa's in Dec, Ibiza Sept-Nov, Goa Dec. All my bases covered.

Very True, and Ibiza, ah the girls, just wild and crazy, but there is some real spirituality happening amongst the madness. Goa, yep, certainly better from your side of the world though.

Cheers

K

 

[ChrisP]

what's so good about Goa in December? i never knew one month was better than another month for that scene. (but i also didnt know Goa was still cool cause i havent heard of people going there for years)

December is when the beach parties happen my friend.

It helps to have local contacts, cos the locals stopped advertising the parties i.e invite only, cos a lot of Yanks and Brits were turning up with the wrong at-i-tooood

Very True, and Ibiza, ah the girls, just wild and crazy, but there is some real spirituality happening amongst the madness. Goa, yep, certainly better from your side of the world though.

Cheers

K

Nah sorry my syntax was really poor in that other post.

What I mean was : Go to Ibiza Sept-Nov, then on to Goa :jam: 4 months of nothing but paaaarttttteeeeiii

 

[Kowalski]

:jam: Take me to dat parteeee, yay. I ca understand the thing about the Brits, they go crazee when boozed up !!


K

 

[Radar]

Yeah,, and what you gonna fertilise it with it, female sperm lol lol lol

K

Well all you really need to do with an egg is to inject the center with DNA, So you don't really need sperm.

 

[Kowalski]

Oh,yes I know, but it's hardly the point of marriage, I prefer to do things in the natural way, at least that' how I got my childen. Lab tricks don't strike me as natural,but a manipulation of nature.

K

 

[michel]

Oh,yes I know, but it's hardly the point of marriage, I prefer to do things in the natural way, at least that' how I got my childen. Lab tricks don't strike me as natural,but a manipulation of nature.

K

If it wasn't for some lab 'tricks' (albeit much less complicated ones), I doubt that you would be alive to day.........I am sure you have had antibiotics, and other medication............

 

[Kowalski]

Yes,, of course Michel, but some have argued, that creating chidren in the Lab is not what medicine is for. In fact, and I'll have to look this up, there is an argument that the fertility issues do not contstitue medicine, which is about saving lives and treating disease.

Cheers
K

 

[michel]

Yes,, of course Michel, but some have argued, that creating chidren in the Lab is not what medicine is for. In fact, and I'll have to look this up, there is an argument that the fertility issues do not contstitue medicine, which is about saving lives and treating disease.

Cheers
K

Perhaps some have argued the point; however, if you or your wife were infertile, and it meant a lot to you to have children, would you not ask for help ?

 

[Kowalski]

Possibly, but that doesn't have much justification in my way of thinking about same sex couples seeking children by these means, which I think was Radar's point.

K

 

[Fluffy]

I don't get this Fluffy? So are you saying change the name and that solves all? Cause that would in effect be what you are doing... Changing the name on the government level from marriage to civil union.

Well no that isn't really what I am saying, largely because I am not simply proposing a name change. I do not view civil unions as marriages under a different name but two different concepts.

The term marriage has come to have many meanings and is slightly different depending on your culture and religion. What the marriage is is essentially the same, sure, but attitudes towards how it should be treated vary massively. If 2 Roman Catholics want to live together, enjoy the same benefits as a married couple yet are worried about tieing the knot because divorce is not an option to them, why should they be discriminated against based on religious beliefs by only giving such benefits to married couples? Under the system I propose, they could apply for a civil union and get married at a later stage.

Similarly, I do not want to get married under a religion that holds a book that condemns me to death in high regard, no matter whether I decide to live my life with a man or a woman. Me and my partner would now have the ability to apply for a civil union and if and when we decided to stop living our lives in sin, we could then get married perhaps.

I don't get it, would not the same problems come up with a civil union?

Only if it is introduced as an alternative to marriage which seems to be what you believe it to be. The fact is that this is simply not the case. People could be in a civil union, married or both. One would give them the rights of what are currently a married couple without placing on them the restrictions of any given religion. The other would be a wholly religious experience and can only be treated as such, in my opinion, if worldy considerations, such as marriage benefits, are removed from the equation

 

[Ceridwen018]

Possibly, but that doesn't have much justification in my way of thinking about same sex couples seeking children by these means, which I think was Radar's point.

You're right--it doesn't have much justification for your way of thinking. It does, however, justify the notion that IVF is no more "unnatural" than an embryo created without sperm.

I have two questions for you, Kowalski. One is an old one that you have yet to answer, and the other is new.

1. What is unnatural about homosexuality?

2. Why are unnatural things bad?

 

[Kowalski]

You're right--it doesn't have much justification for your way of thinking. It does, however, justify the notion that IVF is no more "unnatural" than an embryo created without sperm.

I have two questions for you, Kowalski. One is an old one that you have yet to answer, and the other is new.

1. What is unnatural about homosexuality?

2. Why are unnatural things bad?

I have wto questions for you:

1) What is natural about homosexuality ?

2) Why are unatural things good ?

Take your time.

K

 

[Ceridwen018]

I have wto questions for you:

*Frustrated sigh*

Of course you do, Kowalski. I don't know why you're so afraid to answer my questions...then again, perhaps I do. I too would be afraid if I didn't have an answer.

I know that you don't really care what my answers to these questions are--you're just stalling and trying to change the subject so you won't ever have to face the facts. Don't worry though--I'm not going to let you forget about my questions, and by answering yours, I expect you to make up for your rudeness by finally answering mine.

1) What is natural about homosexuality ?

The attraction that two homosexual people, (or animals), feel toward each other is natural due to the biological nature of said attraction, ie, the endorphins involved, as well as inborn genetic preferences. By definition of natural, ( in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature; existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation; existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies [dictionary.com]), homosexuals and the practice of homosexuality, being neither altered nor influenced by exterior forces of any kind, are natural.

2) Why are unatural things good ?

I will now take a moment to list all of the unnatural things which I consider to be good:

Medicine
MRI's
Casts for broken limbs
IVF
Artificial limbs
Contacts
Glasses
Silverware
Automobiles
Horseback Riding
Milking Cows
Animals as pets
Clothing
Roads
Organized Education
Fingernail polish
Shampoo
Toilets
Candles
Computers
Smoothies
Velveeta
Sandwiches
Underwear
Socks
Shoes
Central Heating and Air Conditioning
Glass-paned windows
Upholstered Chairs
Lightbulbs
Jewelery
I-Pod's
Television
Electricity
NASA
Sunglasses
Boats
Power Tools
Space Shuttles
Skyscrapers
Plastic greenery

...The list goes on and on, but I will stop here. Now that I have effectively answered both of your questions, I would be happy to restate my own two questions to make your process of answering less time consuming, (you won't have to scroll up!).

1. What is unnatural about homosexuality?

2. Why are unnatural things bad?

 

[Jaymes]

1) What is natural about homosexuality ?

It is in the animal kingdom. It is natural. Natural does not mean good or bad, it just means natural.

2) Why are unatural things good ?

Unnatural things aren't good or bad, they're just unnatural. Glasses are unnatural. But I'm not going to stop wearing mine because I like to see, thank you very much.

Unnatural and natural are just attention-grabbing words meant to sway someone's view; "If it's unnatural, it must be wrong!" Morality on something can be determined, but the natural or unnatural...ness of an act or item usually has little to do with it. Poisons are natural, but that doesn't mean it's moral to use them against someone.

 

[Fluffy]

The factor in question, naturalness, is actually being used incorrectly at this point, I feel. Something which is unnatural is that which is not bounded by the laws of nature. It is effectively the same as what people mean when they say supernatural. Therefore, anything that can be known about with the five senses is natural and anything which cannot is not natural.

Additionally unnatural has come to be used to describe that which is not intended by nature. Nature, in this case, would be things like evolution, the big bang and other creative, scientific theories that have, in some way, affected humanities development. For example, some people argue that homosexuality is not an effective way of passing on one's genes and therefore is unnatural because evolution cannot have produced it. However, such a view is spawned from a misunderstanding of these natural laws often with many semantic errors such as take the phrase "intention of nature" too literally and subconciously, mistakenly, assuming that it implies that it is possible for such a thing to have an intention.

Homosexuality is clearly not unnatural under either of these views. In fact the only definition under which homosexuality is unnatural is the following: Unnatural, that which pertains to or has relation with homosexuality. This final definition is the definition most often used by those who describe homosexuality as unnatural. However, doing this brings no additional meanings to homosexuality than if I were to redefine the term "toilet-paper" to describe the Bible. This may seem very obvious, however, since it is the most commonly used argument, I felt that demonstrating its weakness was probably worthwhile.

Edit: Additionally, I would point out that I am firmly in the first camp with regards to my usage of the term "unnatural" since I feel that it is the most meaningful.

Lastly out of these 3 definitions, none of them lead to a reasoned, logical conclusion that what is unnatural is wrong. However, some very clever people, realising that the final definition is neither reasoned nor logical, have decided that they are already not limited by such considerations and so are quite comfortable in declaring the immorality of homosexuality.

 

[Kowalski]

*Frustrated sigh*

Of course you do, Kowalski. I don't know why you're so afraid to answer my questions...then again, perhaps I do. I too would be afraid if I didn't have an answer.

I know that you don't really care what my answers to these questions are--you're just stalling and trying to change the subject so you won't ever have to face the facts. Don't worry though--I'm not going to let you forget about my questions, and by answering yours, I expect you to make up for your rudeness by finally answering mine.

The attraction that two homosexual people, (or animals), feel toward each other is natural due to the biological nature of said attraction, ie, the endorphins involved, as well as inborn genetic preferences. By definition of natural, ( in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature; existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation; existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies [dictionary.com]), homosexuals and the practice of homosexuality, being neither altered nor influenced by exterior forces of any kind, are natural.

I will now take a moment to list all of the unnatural things which I consider to be good:

Medicine
MRI's
Casts for broken limbs
IVF
Artificial limbs
Contacts
Glasses
Silverware
Automobiles
Horseback Riding
Milking Cows
Animals as pets
Clothing
Roads
Organized Education
Fingernail polish
Shampoo
Toilets
Candles
Computers
Smoothies
Velveeta
Sandwiches
Underwear
Socks
Shoes
Central Heating and Air Conditioning
Glass-paned windows
Upholstered Chairs
Lightbulbs
Jewelery
I-Pod's
Television
Electricity
NASA
Sunglasses
Boats
Power Tools
Space Shuttles
Skyscrapers
Plastic greenery

...The list goes on and on, but I will stop here. Now that I have effectively answered both of your questions, I would be happy to restate my own two questions to make your process of answering less time consuming, (you won't have to scroll up!).

1. What is unnatural about homosexuality?

2. Why are unnatural things bad?

Don't worry, I'm not reading all that dross.

Answer to your questions.

1) The human body was not designed for anal sexual practices, FACT.

2) It follows then, by logical argument, that such practice is unatural. It also follows that the female body was designed to have children by normal sexual intercourse, FACT. Any other way of females obtaining childern is unatural, FACT.


I trust you understand the biological basics of procreation ?

End of arguement.

K

 

[Fluffy]

1) The human body was not designed for anal sexual practices, FACT.

2) It follows then, by logical argument, that such practice is unatural. It also follows that the female body was designed to have children by normal sexual intercourse, FACT. Any other way of females obtaining childern is unatural, FACT.

Yes this would be a sympton which I described in my last post, that of mistakenly attributing verbs to 'nature' that cannot possibly be taken seriously when considered rationally. The very idea that nature or evolution is able to design anything is ludicrous. Evolution or nature has no mind to think with and so is quite incapable of designing anything for a specific purpose. Therefore it cannot have intended or not intended anything, including heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Edit: I would add that such reasoning includes a second semantic impossibility. Since homosexuality does not describe a practice of any kind but rather a state of being, it can neither include nor not include the act of anal sex. Furthermore, the act of anal sex is totally independent of sexuality and does not require a penis to facilitate. Since both genders have anuses, it is perfectly possible between heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples of both gender.

 

[Jaymes]

Don't worry, I'm not reading all that dross.

Answer to your questions.

1) The human body was not designed for anal sexual practices, FACT.

Ah, great! Then me being lesbian is totally natural, along with gay males who don't like anal sex.

2) It follows then, by logical argument, that such practice is unatural. It also follows that the female body was designed to have children by normal sexual intercourse, FACT. Any other way of females obtaining childern is unatural, FACT.

My nose wasn't designed to hold glasses. Unnatural! My breasts weren't designed to be shoved into a bra. Unnatural! Animals that adopt animals of a dead pack/flock/herd member, or even another species don't exist, and that is just a liberal lie!

If my body was meant to have children, you'd think I'd be physically able to, you know, carry a child to term.