Putting the errors to rest

[The Voice of Reason]

So is the killing of offspring, that does not make it natural for us to do. Natural for one is not natural for all.

If you call somone a bigot for opposing your want of marriage, then you are just as much a bigot for opposing someone else's want of marriage.

Why don't I hear you arguing for NAMBLA(ugh, makes me sick) rights, or incestuous marriage? I will say here that I am completley and vehemently(NAMBLA) against them. How many here will argue for polygamy? If heterosexual love is no better than homosexual love, then who are you to say that your love is better than anyone elses no matter whom(or how many) they love, and that you deserve to express this through marriage and they do not?

Emu - I'm a little disappointed in you. Invoking a group like NAMBLA to try to make your point in regards to gays and lesbians marrying is incredibly weak. Since I refuse to invoke the Bible to hold my point, I will do so on the rational and logical level (not stooping to an appeal to emotion).
No one here has argued for the rights of a group like NAMBLA for a very simple reason - it is a group of adults that exploits children. Since children are incapapable of consent, the very premise of NAMBLA is rejected. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are aware of this, hence my dissapointment in your statement. And like you, we are all disgusted with the actions of a group like NAMBLA.

As far as group marriages are concerned, I couldn't care less (assuming that all involved are consenting adults). My marriage is perfectly safe and will not suffer one iota from a group of consenting adults that decide to co-habitate and seek the sanction of the state to do so. Then again, maybe others would feel threatened because their marriages aren't built on as solid ground as mine.

Incestuous relationships are an extreme minority (and since both of us hail from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we know what a bad stigma that can be).

Your argument against polygamy is rather ironic - since it is practiced in North America on religious grounds.

Lastly, I would venture that anyone expressing their love through marriage is on shaky ground. My love for my wife and family is not built on the fact that we are married - rather the marriage affords us social acceptance and legal rights that we would not otherwise enjoy. If you want to express your love for someone, I would hope that you do it every day, all day, and unceasingly. My son is twelve years old, in middle school and plays sports year round (surrounded by his friends). No matter where we are, no matter who else is present, no matter what anyone else thinks, I tell him "I love you" a hundred times a day. He understands that, and he has been raised to appreciate what love really means. No paper contract between my wife and I means squat to me (other than the legal ramifications). If we ever cease to love one another, that piece of paper will not hold us together.

Dissapointedly,
TVOR

 

[Mister Emu]

huh?

If you call someone a bigot for not believing you have a right to marry, while on the other hand claim that others (who think they should be able to be married) should not have the right to marry, you too are a bigot in your own use of the term.

Incest can cause harm to offspring.

What if they agreed not to have children(even went so far as to be sterilized), and it is not a cetainty that they will have a "harmed" child.

 

[linwood]

If you call someone a bigot for not believing you have a right to marry, while on the other hand claim that others (who think they should be able to be married) should not have the right to marry, you too are a bigot in your own use of the term.

Untrue.
I`m not basing my opposition to pedophilia on anyones right to marry.
I`m basing my opposition to pedophilia on the harm it causes a child.
To be able to marry one must be able to consent.
I don`t believe a child can consent.
It is not bigotry to wish to keep perverts from harming children.

What if they agreed not to have children(even went so far as to be sterilized), and it is not a cetainty that they will have a "harmed" child.

Go for it.
If no one is harmed in any way..have at it.
I`ll sing at the wedding. (nevermind, that might be harmful)

Although it is not a certainty an incestuous child would be harmed it is possible and for that reason I won`t condone it.
I could change my mind if I were to find that the stats show harm greatly unlikely.

 

[Mister Emu]

Emu - I'm a little disappointed in you. Invoking a group like NAMBLA to try to make your point in regards to gays and lesbians marrying is incredibly weak. Since I refuse to invoke the Bible to hold my point, I will do so on the rational and logical level (not stooping to an appeal to emotion).
No one here has argued for the rights of a group like NAMBLA for a very simple reason - it is a group of adults that exploits children. Since children are incapapable of consent, the very premise of NAMBLA is rejected. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are aware of this, hence my dissapointment in your statement. And like you, we are all disgusted with the actions of a group like NAMBLA.

I am sorry about this, I should not have brought what I consider a vile association into this.

As far as group marriages are concerned, I couldn't care less (assuming that all involved are consenting adults). My marriage is perfectly safe and will not suffer one iota from a group of consenting adults that decide to co-habitate and seek the sanction of the state to do so. Then again, maybe others would feel threatened because their marriages aren't built on as solid ground as mine.

Ok

Incestuous relationships are an extreme minority (and since both of us hail from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we know what a bad stigma that can be).

So you believe they have a right to marriage?

Lastly, I would venture that anyone expressing their love through marriage is on shaky ground. My love for my wife and family is not built on the fact that we are married - rather the marriage affords us social acceptance and legal rights that we would not otherwise enjoy. If you want to express your love for someone, I would hope that you do it every day, all day, and unceasingly. My son is twelve years old, in middle school and plays sports year round (surrounded by his friends). No matter where we are, no matter who else is present, no matter what anyone else thinks, I tell him "I love you" a hundred times a day. He understands that, and he has been raised to appreciate what love really means. No paper contract between my wife and I means squat to me (other than the legal ramifications). If we ever cease to love one another, that piece of paper will not hold us together.

You mean that your marriage wasn't an expression of your love for one another? That is what I meant, not that the piece of paper meant that you did or didn't love the person, but that it was one more way to express the love you share for your partner.

The word bigot has been used recently to describe Christians that are against homosexuality, I believe it is a sin, so it seems to me people are(maybe inadvertenly) calling me a bigot. This kind of got to me, and that was a result. Will not happen again.

(Just to clarify, while in a way I am against same-sex marriage, because I beleive Homosexuality is a sin, I think it is people's lives to live.)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So you believe they have a right to marriage?

Actually, I was trying to inject a little levity (hence the reference to our being from KY), but I really haven't given any thought to the possibility of an incestuous marriage. Let me ruminate on that for a bit, and I'll get back to you. Shooting from the hip, I'd say that anything closer than first cousins is a health risk to the offspring, but I'm only going on what I was told as a child. Maybe the long answer will involve at what distance of relationship the term "incestuous" is no longer applicable.

You mean that your marriage wasn't an expression of your love for one another? That is what I meant, not that the piece of paper meant that you did or didn't love the person, but that it was one more way to express the love you share for your partner.

I apologize - I misunderstood your point. In this context, yes my marriage is an expression of my love for my wife - but it is a small one compared to the way I act around her, how I treat her, and my actions that effect her. Again, I apologize for misunderstanding.

The word bigot has been used recently to describe Christians that are against homosexuality, I believe it is a sin, so it seems to me people are(maybe inadvertenly) calling me a bigot. This kind of got to me, and that was a result. Will not happen again.

This has come up in another thread this very evening - no one is taking the position that your Christian beliefs are making you a bigot. One acheives the status of bigot based on whether they attack a group of people (without a legitimate reason - i.e. NAMBLA) simply because they are different.

TVOR

 

[Bastet]

You mean that your marriage wasn't an expression of your love for one another? That is what I meant, not that the piece of paper meant that you did or didn't love the person, but that it was one more way to express the love you share for your partner.

And yet, you would seek to deny homosexual couples the ability to express the love they share for their partner in this same manner.
Far too many people I have come across on this board (and other places), consider homosexual couples to be merely "in lust". This is simply not true. Yes, there are homosexual couples who have relationships based solely on sex - but there are heterosexual couples who do the same. Yes, there are homosexual people who indiscriminately sleep around - but again, there are heterosexual people who do the same. No relationship (gay or straight), that is based solely on sex, will last. That's a fact, plain and simple. But to assume that everyone who is gay, is only interested in sex, is just ridiculous.
So your bible tells you homosexuality is a sin - but, as I know has already been pointed out, not everyone in the world (or even on this forum), shares your religion or your view. If we're wrong, we'll find out, and you won't be any the worse for wear (you can even shake your finger and say "I told you so!"). If we're not wrong, then we've spent our lifetimes being treated as second class citizens, because some people took the word of a dusty old book of dubious origins, and made it law. Can you live with that?

 

[Pah]

So is the killing of offspring, that does not make it natural for us to do. Natural for one is not natural for all.

Don't talk to me about the killing of children. Does the first born of Egypt ring a bell? Understand your own house is dirty before you look to another's

It seems that your God is all in favor of killing children. In how many conquests did he order the complete killing of all males? - how many were the complete annihilation of the whole nation? We do it as a species whether God directs us or not. We share that nature with all animals and it is no longer a dirty little secret.

Now then, perhaps you want to consider the morality of killing children and abusing them. We disapprove of that act because it harms another. Homosexuality does not nor does it amongst the hundreds of documented species in which it occurs.

If you call somone a bigot for opposing your want of marriage, then you are just as much a bigot for opposing someone else's want of marriage.

It's not that simple and, in fact, a misleading statement. We call some one a bigot because they focus on a behavior - something quite physical. Those of us who support homosexual marriage do not see anything wrong in the the old, outdated concept of marriage.

You speak of ideas and that is not the target of bigots.

Why don't I hear you arguing for NAMBLA(ugh, makes me sick) rights, or incestuous marriage? I will say here that I am completley and vehemently(NAMBLA) against them. How many here will argue for polygamy? If heterosexual love is no better than homosexual love, then who are you to say that your love is better than anyone elses no matter whom(or how many) they love, and that you deserve to express this through marriage and they do not?

You insult us!! and that makes me sick when you speak of incest and pedophilia as if that goes with homosexuality.

Polygamy I will argue for - it has a tradition right back to the Bible and I don't hear you saying the Bible is corrupt. This is one "slippery slope" that will happen in spite of the reluctance of some Christians.

 

[Mister Emu]

And yet, you would seek to deny homosexual couples the ability to express the love they share for their partner in this same manner.

Just to clarify, while in a way I am against same-sex marriage, because I beleive Homosexuality is a sin, I think it is people's lives to live

I guess this was a bit ambiguous, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it is up to a person to make that choice and it is a person's life to live.

Don't talk to me about the killing of children. Does the first born of Egypt ring a bell? Understand your own house is dirty before you look to another's

God is not human. Everything He does is righteous. He gave the pharoah multiple chances, that he rejected. The people of egypt were evil and wanted to keep their slaves.

It seems that your God is all in favor of killing children. In how many conquests did he order the complete killing of all males? - how many were the complete annihilation of the whole nation? We do it as a species whether God directs us or not. We share that nature with all animals and it is no longer a dirty little secret

The one true God is all in favor of making sure that His people survive unstained.

Now then, perhaps you want to consider the morality of killing children and abusing them. We disapprove of that act because it harms another. Homosexuality does not nor does it amongst the hundreds of documented species in which it occurs.

I do not believe the killing of children is proper, and in no way shape or form do I believe it is moral to abuse them.

In none of your cases were the people's own offspring killed(which is what I was reffering to), and I was pointing out that just because other animals do it doesn't make it natural for all animals

You insult us!! and that makes me sick when you speak of incest and pedophilia as if that goes with homosexuality.

I did not try to insult anyone sorry, and I did not try to lump you together with incest and pedophilia, I was merely trying to point out that both groups(I chose those sepcific because I though that almost everyone would agree they are "bad") would use the same arguements as homosexuals, namely that it is love.

 

[Bastet]

...while in a way I am against same-sex marriage...

Where is the ambiguity there? You believe it is a person's life to live, yet you are against something that is, for many, a very large part of that life. Or it would be, were it legal.

 

[Bastet]

I did not try to insult anyone sorry, and I did not try to lump you together with incest and pedophilia, I was merely trying to point out that both groups(I chose those sepcific because I though that almost everyone would agree they are "bad") would use the same arguements as homosexuals, namely that it is love.

By your own admission, you consider homosexuality to be "bad". Therefore, you have lumped us together with incest and paedophilia when trying to use this inane "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage...whether you were trying be insulting or not. And, in case it's not completely obvious to you, "almost everyone" does not agree on whether homosexuality is "good" or "bad".

 

[Pah]

Mr. Emu,

I'm not going to argue the character of God in this thread.

I did not try to insult anyone sorry, and I did not try to lump you together with incest and pedophilia, I was merely trying to point out that both groups(I chose those sepcific because I though that almost everyone would agree they are "bad") would use the same arguements as homosexuals, namely that it is love

I guess that's the problem with some moral systems, they tend to lump all immoral acts together. And that is the beauty of Constitutional rule in that it does not. It relies on the recognition of rights and the freedoms that come from them for those able to partake of them. That covers the aspect of consent.

Incest, however, is prohibited because the state was found to have a legitimate interest in preserving the health of those in their constituency.

Two Constitutional principles that make the "slippery slope" argument no more than bunkum. It can logically understand much more than an ascetic moral code.

-pah-

 

[Paraprakrti]

• Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
  
  Nope, Homosexuals are seeking the same rights in regard to choice of mate

• 
  
  And no one is infringing on anyone's right to "choice of mate". The right to marriage is reserved for two members of the opposite sex in the same way the right to procreate is reserved for... two members of the opposite sex.
  
  On a side note, I personally disagree with how marriage is taken even by the heterosexuals. Since marriage is often taken as an institution of lust, homosexuality will fit right in. Let them have it. It makes no difference.
  
  
  

  [*]It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.
  
  Nope. part A fits in Slot B - and slot C and slot D. Friction can be applied by many parts
  Nope. sex is the means of procreation

  
  I think what this person may have been trying to say is that the female and male bodies compliment each other in that only in this arrangement is it possible to reproduce.
  Of course, if your parents had not reproduced you would not be here to defend a lifestyle that engages in a sexual act that is condemned from reproduction. The fact that everyone's existence is dependent on heterosexual engagement should invariably show the precedence heterosexuality has over homosexuality. For it was not homosexuality that your birth was dependent on.
  
  
  

  [*]Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.
  
  
  Nope. It will be a true marriage in the eyes of the law.
  Nope. One "flesh" is created by any incorporation under law
  Nope. Homosexuality is found throughout nature.
  Nope. No more so than heterosexual sex (non-procreatative in all but a small period of time)

  
  1. Then the value of the law is in question.
  2. Then the value of the law is in question.
  3. Her definition of "natural" includes the natural ability to procreate. The point that homosexuality may be found throughout nature just shows that many creatures are naturally attracted to the rubbing of the genitals upon whatever will give them gratification. If this is our justification, then your consent is valueless as I unhesitatingly send you to a slaughterhouse. I am sure we can find good use for your animal meat and hide.
  
  
  

  [*]Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.
  
  Nope. What God puts together is undone by man. God is powerless under the law.

  
  It is more a case of deviation, not being undone. God has no necessity to flex His power "under the law". Free will is also a factor of Christianity.
  
  
  

  [*]Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.
  
  
  Nope. The state has an interest in prohibiting incest - none in prohibiting homosexuality.

  
  Then the state's interest is in question. The argument is not about what the state is doing or what they are interested in; it is about what the state should be doing, what they should be interested in.
  
  
  

  [*]Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.
  
  
  Nope.
  Nope. Homosexuals DO reproduce at half to 75% rate of heterosexuals.

  
  Where is your rebuttal? The point that homosexuals reproduce at 50 to 75% the rate of heterosexuals has nothing to do with the fact that in order for them to reproduce "a third party must be brought into the relationship".
  
  
  

  [*]Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.
  
  
  Make up your mind - sex is only for marriage - right?

  
  I think the point she is trying to make is that although sex is only meant for marriage, marriage is not only meant for sex.
  
  
  

  [*]Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued.
  
  Nope. The statement is a flag for an insecure heterosexual marriage
  Nope. Homosexual marriage IS the real thing
  Nope. Marriages are equal - get over it.
  Nope. Homosexual marriage is not "lesser".

  
  I understand her concern, but I don't have as much compassion for the pro-heterosexual point of view when it is itself degraded.
  
  
  

  [*]The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.
  
  
  We've been over that!

  
  Herein she backs up my suggestion that she means to say that marriage is not merely for sex.
  
  
  

  [*]The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.
  
  Then why isn't millions of dollars being spent by the religious industry to cure those problems Actions speak louder than words

-pah-

This is where I agree with your point.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Wow... Just... wow.

On a side note, I personally disagree with how marriage is taken even by the heterosexuals. Since marriage is often taken as an institution of lust, homosexuality will fit right in. Let them have it. It makes no difference.

If I ever get married, whereever it says 'matrimony' on the certificate, I'm gonna use White-out and insert 'institution of lust.' It's just so much more romantic! *sniffles*

If this is our justification, then your consent is valueless as I unhesitatingly send you to a slaughterhouse. I am sure we can find good use for your animal meat and hide.

I remember the post wherein you encouraged Gerani to try to drink poison in the context of debate. This method of debate is borderline threatening and demeaning to all who are posting here. Please refrain from it in the future.

 

[meogi]

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m

r

j)
n.

1. 1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
   2. The state of being married; wedlock.
   3. A common-law marriage.
   4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Just so we got that in here... it's part 4 we're wanting changed. Mainly the 'legal force' part.

Let them have it. It makes no difference.

So why are you arguing against gay-marriage laws?

That statement alone supports everything we've said. It makes no difference.

 

[Bastet]

So why are you arguing for support of anti gay-marriage laws?

That statement alone supports everything we've said. It makes no difference.

He's not so much anti gay-marriage, as anti lust. As if gays corner the market on that or something... :bonk:

 

[Jaymes]

He's not so much anti gay-marriage, as anti lust. As if gays corner the market on that or something... :bonk:

... crap, they've found us out?! :retarded:

 

[linwood]

... crap, they've found us out?!

I for one won`t stand for it.
You can take my heterosexual right to lust when you can pry my viagra prescription from my cold dead fingers!!

God is not human. Everything He does is righteous. He gave the pharoah multiple chances, that he rejected. The people of egypt were evil and wanted to keep their slaves.

He gave the Pharoah no chance as everytime the Pharoh started to loosen up God intentionally hardened his heart
Not that it matters.
The statement that ALL the people of egypt were evil is fallacy.
Newborn children cannot be evil and those were your Gods only target.
God did not destroy all those babies because of slavery thats a strawman and a bad one.
Your god condones slavery and even sets rules for it`s existence.
By that logic the Hebrews should have been killed themselves at a later date.

I guess this was a bit ambiguous, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it is up to a person to make that choice and it is a person's life to live.

Then step aside and let them live it.

The one true God is all in favor of making sure that His people survive unstained.

Thats the point.
I`m not HIS people and never will be so as I said in another thread it`s morally fine for me to be slaughtered at the hands of your rightious god.
God discriminates on the basis of culture and that makes him immoral.

I do not believe the killing of children is proper, and in no way shape or form do I believe it is moral to abuse them.

Yet you worship a god that orders the killing of children.
Therefore by your own standards your god is immoral.

In none of your cases were the people's own offspring killed(which is what I was reffering to),

It`s clear to me now.
It`s bad to kill the children of your own culture but it`s just fine to kill the children of another culture.
Thats not immoral?

Give up Mr.Emu you cannot harmonize your gods penchent for child killing.
If you do you destroy your gods omnipotence.
It`s a lose/lose situation for God.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I remember the post wherein you encouraged Gerani to try to drink poison in the context of debate.

That was an example of how it is foolish to use activities of a superior being in justifying our activities. What I said was completely reasonable as well as effective to making my point. You really have nothing to do with it.

This method of debate is borderline threatening and demeaning to all who are posting here. Please refrain from it in the future.

I am not making threats, I am making points. I am sorry you can't see it.

 

[Paraprakrti]

So why are you arguing against gay-marriage laws?

That statement alone supports everything we've said. It makes no difference.

I am not so passionately against gay-marriage when so many straight-marriages are corrupt. Though, the tendency others have to rationalize gay marriage does provoke me to debate.

It only makes no difference because everything is already so degraded. If we are going to blame the homosexuals, we have to blame the heterosexuals first.

 

[Jaymes]

I am not making threats, I am making points. I am sorry you can't see it.

You refusing to admit to something does not mean we can't see what you're saying.