Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Pah]

P1: The scientific arguement for natural human homosexuality is not complete
P2: The genetic theory is not yet proven
P3: The human rectum is damaged by anal sex, which is glorified in male homosexuality, which is scientific fact and not religious
P4: The social argument is speculative and based upon human testimony and therefore is no more valuable than other testimony (religious testimony in spheres other than public schools)
P5: The analogy that homosexuality occurs in nature is not a convincing analogy in light of P3

C: Despite the fact that some social scientists falsely contend that homosexuality is natural based on human testimony alone, it is no more valuable than other testimonies, which seem to compliment what science can prove: the rectum is damaged by anal sex.

This argument does not address female homosexuality. Your conclusion is wrong just because P3 is not inclusive of both genders.

However, in males, I would like to know the damage, not comparable to vaginal sex, that is created by anal sex if it is something other than that which can be prevented by proper lubrication and hygiene.

From the 10 rules of Anal Sex (found while Googling for "rectal damage sex")

• 1. Anal intercourse is the least practiced form of anal sex.
• 2. Anal stimulation, including intercourse, is not painful if done properly. (pain would be an indicator of damage)
• 3. Anal sex can be enjoyed even if it has been consistently uncomfortable in the past.(discomfort may not be indicitve of damage)
• 4. Two muscle rings called sphincters surround the anal opening. Each functions independently.
• 5. Anal stimulation provides many kinds of pleasure
• 6. Anal stimulation can lead to orgasm
• 7. Diet contributes to the enjoyment of anal sex (related to bowel movements)
• 8. Different rules of hygiene apply to the vagina and rectum
• 9. Anal intercourse is not necessarily an act of dominance and submission.
• 10. Anal sex can be perfectly safe, even beneficial.

http://www.sexuality.org/l/incoming/analrule.html contains detailed explanations of each of the above and may not be suitable for some.

I would say that an argument can be made against male same-sex marriage based on anal sex. It is, unfortunetly not as secure as some would make it

 

[Scorn]

10. Anal sex can be perfectly safe, even beneficial.
pah...yer crazy!

Whoops. Back on topic!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This argument does not address female homosexuality. Your conclusion is wrong just because P3 is not inclusive of both genders.

However, in males, I would like to know the damage, not comparable to vaginal sex, that is created by anal sex if it is something other than that which can be prevented by proper lubrication and hygiene.

From the 10 rules of Anal Sex (found while Googling for "rectal damage sex")

• 1. Anal intercourse is the least practiced form of anal sex.
• 2. Anal stimulation, including intercourse, is not painful if done properly. (pain would be an indicator of damage)
• 3. Anal sex can be enjoyed even if it has been consistently uncomfortable in the past.(discomfort may not be indicitve of damage)
• 4. Two muscle rings called sphincters surround the anal opening. Each functions independently.
• 5. Anal stimulation provides many kinds of pleasure
• 6. Anal stimulation can lead to orgasm
• 7. Diet contributes to the enjoyment of anal sex (related to bowel movements)
• 8. Different rules of hygiene apply to the vagina and rectum
• 9. Anal intercourse is not necessarily an act of dominance and submission.
• 10. Anal sex can be perfectly safe, even beneficial.

http://www.sexuality.org/l/incoming/analrule.html contains detailed explanations of each of the above and may not be suitable for some.

I would say that an argument can be made against male same-sex marriage based on anal sex. It is, unfortunetly not as secure as some would make it

P3 is sustained in all forms of anal sex, hetero and homo. Thanks for the link, but I don't think that it is reliable.

I realize that it applies specifically to male homosexuality, I qualified myself in this manner, and Maize tells me that females practice it as well. I was arguing specifically for the dissemenation of information on both sides of the coin, not against homo marriage.

 

[Green Gaia]

After talking with pah privately, I'm removing the modertor posts about the anal sex discussion. It can continue where it left off. However, it needs to be argued in the context of same sex marriage and not an attack on homosexuality in general.

 

[Pah]

Thank you Maize.!

angellous_evangellous,

Your third propostion is still not applicable for use against homosexuals desiring to be married. There is no injunction levied against heterosexual anal sex either in or outside of marriage - there can be no marriage prohibition for homosexuals performing the same act.

Certainly, we know of consenting sex whereby one partner is whipped or caned and physical damage occurs. That is not censured by law when consent is granted. Likewise the damage caused by anal sex is largely, if not totally, controled by proper care prior to and during the act and should not also be a hinderance to marriage. What is legal outside marriage (Lawerance v Texas) should be legal within marriage.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you Maize.!

angellous_evangellous,

Your third propostion is still not applicable for use against homosexuals desiring to be married. There is no injunction levied against heterosexual anal sex either in or outside of marriage - there can be no marriage prohibition for homosexuals performing the same act.

Certainly, we know of consenting sex whereby one partner is whipped or caned and physical damage occurs. That is not censured by law when consent is granted. Likewise the damage caused by anal sex is largely, if not totally, controled by proper care prior to and during the act and should not also be a hinderance to marriage. What is legal outside marriage (Lawerance v Texas) should be legal within marriage.

That would be an excellent point if I or anyone else where arguing against homosexual marriage using that logic, which I have said repeatedly that I do not. As I said before, the damage caused by the prevention of homosexual marriage is visible, and the damage argument against the practice is merely forseen or predicted, which makes the argument less tenable. We got on the topic of the dangers of anal sex because I was arguing for the dissemenation of information against homosexuality to be balanced with information for it, that is all. I never posited an argument against homosexual marriage on this thread or anywhere else.

 

[Pah]

That would be an excellent point if I or anyone else where arguing against homosexual marriage using that logic, which I have said repeatedly that I do not. As I said before, the damage caused by the prevention of homosexual marriage is visible, and the damage argument against the practice is merely forseen or predicted, which makes the argument less tenable. We got on the topic of the dangers of anal sex because I was arguing for the dissemenation of information against homosexuality to be balanced with information for it, that is all. I never posited an argument against homosexual marriage on this thread or anywhere else.

My sincere apologies to Maize - I thought your "dissemination" of information was on topic. If you argue, as you have in other posts to the thread, that homosexuality should be "reconsidered" in light of "information" and you don't oppose homosexual marriage, your message seems to send mixed signals. Perhaps you should start a new thread and discuss exactly what your position is. But not here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My sincere apologies to Maize - I thought your "dissemination" of information was on topic. If you argue, as you have in other posts to the thread, that homosexuality should be "reconsidered" in light of "information" and you don't oppose homosexual marriage, your message seems to send mixed signals. Perhaps you should start a new thread and discuss exactly what your position is. But not here.

Because something should be legal does not mean that it is ethical or morally right. The law is the lowest common denomenator, and ethics and morality affect the law, and science affects ethics. One can be in favor of a law which supports human freedom and yet request that all sides of the subject share equal review in every possible setting, and have both the justification for the laws and the ethics behind and above the law constantly under review.

EDIT:

P1 Homosexuality is not fully scientifically justifiable
P2 Sexual expression is a human right with certain limitations that effect other rights
P3 The nature of homosexuality affects whether or not certain homosexual behaviors should be legally recognized.
P4 Anal sex is one aspect of male homosexuality that I find unethical, but not enough to be illegal

C: While I have both associated anal sex with male homosexuality and therefore argued against it, I think that the harm from it is not enough to make it illegal in the same way that other sexual expressions should be (like child abuse). Therefore, I am not arguing against the legality of homosexual marriage because of hospital visitation rights (etc).

However, I am questioning the nature of homosexuality, which has an affect on legal issues, though I personally am not using it in this manner. Furthermore, arguments as to the nature of homosexuality are largely subjective and this opens the door for the validity of religious testimony, and religious testimony should have little to no affect on American law.

So the question of the nature of homosexuality is closely related to the topic as you correctly perceive. That is, one can be for the legality or freedom to do something, but be against the particular action, and raise related questions as to the nature of the action which may have bearing on the topic for others.

 

[linwood]

P1 Homosexuality is not fully scientifically justifiable
It doesn`t need to be.
My habit of smoking a pack a day isn`t scientificall justifiable either but it is not illegal.
My habit of enjoying a thick juicy rare slab of cow isn`t scientifically justifiable either but I can`t wait for dinner.


P2 Sexual expression is a human right with certain limitations that effect other rights.

Certainly, but as long as your sexual expression doesn`t harm anyone else I see no problem with it.

P3 The nature of homosexuality affects whether or not certain homosexual behaviors should be legally recognized.

I don`t see how.

P4 Anal sex is one aspect of male homosexuality that I find unethical, but not enough to be illegal

I`ve read your posts and still see no "absolute" basis for anal sex being unethical

C: While I have both associated anal sex with male homosexuality and therefore argued against it, I think that the harm from it is not enough to make it illegal in the same way that other sexual expressions should be (like child abuse). Therefore, I am not arguing against the legality of homosexual marriage because of hospital visitation rights (etc).

Anal sex isn`t the point.
Even if it were unethical it extends far beyond homosexuality.

However, I am questioning the nature of homosexuality, which has an affect on legal issues, though I personally am not using it in this manner.

What evidenced effects does homsexuality have on legal issues?

Furthermore, arguments as to the nature of homosexuality are largely subjective and this opens the door for the validity of religious testimony, and religious testimony should have little to no affect on American law.

They are subjective but all opinions involved in making law that will affect the entire populace of a culture should be based on evidence.
Their is no evidence that denies the validity of homosexuality.


So the question of the nature of homosexuality is closely related to the topic as you correctly perceive. That is, one can be for the legality or freedom to do something, but be against the particular action, and raise related questions as to the nature of the action which may have bearing on the topic for others.

Certainly but you cannot deny human rights to people based on opinion.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Is there any good reason for the no votes?

If marriage is for making children/then should childless marriages be outlawed?

...no, this isnt why they dont want homosexuals from getting married..

What about all of those references to polygamy in the bible?

Marriage is something the government should stay out of as much as possible!

 

[arthra]

I can see how from a civil standpoint governments could recognize "same-sex relationships" in terms of benefits and such, but i also think religious traditions and practices should also be protected by the Constitution... in other words, Courts should stay out of litigating sexual bias or other cases in a religious context. So while the civil code will likely become more open to a variety of practices, there needs to be some protection or insulation I think for religious groups.

 

[Pah]

I can see how from a civil standpoint governments could recognize "same-sex relationships" in terms of benefits and such, but i also think religious traditions and practices should also be protected by the Constitution... in other words, Courts should stay out of litigating sexual bias or other cases in a religious context. So while the civil code will likely become more open to a variety of practices, there needs to be some protection or insulation I think for religious groups.

Religious traditions and practises vary from faith to faith and within the same faith over a period of time. Selecting one of the many would favor that one over all the others. The thought within Constitutional thinking is that any governement should not favor one over the other - that is why all are protected. And they protected as the faith of an individual who will asscoiate with others of simular faith and form a religion. The Churches in America are protected by both the freedom to worship and the freedom to associate.

 

[Loki]

Ok, i'm fairly new heare, so i do suffer from "haven't-read-all-32-pages-of-the-thread syndrome", but I will give my comment anyhow:

As I see it, the government should recognise gay marriages. or at least civil unions. To me, marriage is just a word, and i think that the religious rite of marriage should be decided by the church, but i do believe that the government should recognise long term same sex relationships. After all, gay people are people too, and it's none of my business what they do. As long as the relationship is between consenting adults, I am perfectly fine with it. If a couple want to use whips and chains, as long as that's what they both like, it's fine by me, and if it's two blokes, two women, or a bloke and a woman, I'm not bothered, as long as they both like it, so I say "Why shouldn't their relationship be recognised, just like everyone else?"

 

[painted wolf]

but i also think religious traditions and practices should also be protected by the Constitution... in other words, Courts should stay out of litigating sexual bias or other cases in a religious context.

yeah... My religion has a long history of reccognizing and celebrating such marrages. So for the Government to say that same-sex couples are not good on the basis of one religious view-point is unconstitutional.

wa:do

 

[niceguy]

I have no problems with same sex marriages.

 

[Green Gaia]

Bumping this poll back up for newer folks.


The Question: Should same-sex relationships be recognized by a secular government if that same government recognizes opposite-sex couples?

If not, what is the secular reason against it doing so?

 

[Aqualung]

Yes, they should be recongnized secularly, but churches should not be forced to recognize/preform them.

 

[Green Gaia]

churches should not be forced to recognize/preform them.

That's not even an issue.

 

[Aqualung]

It will be if I don't say it. I know without a doubt that if I don't say it, somebody will make it an issue.

 

[Green Gaia]

It will be if I don't say it. I know without a doubt that if I don't say it, somebody will make it an issue.

Only because someone somewhere has told them in an effort to frighten them into being against same sex marriage, that their church will be forced to marry gay couples. It's an absurd idea and a complete lie that someone made up to scare people. Churches now can be picky about who they will and will not marry in their church. That's not going to change. Besides why would anyone want to get married in a church where they are hated and looked down on? Especially when there are churches who are willing and already hold marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.

The fight for equal rights is a LEGAL fight. Period. Churches will still be able to do whatever they want or not want.

Thank you for bringing that up so now that argument is null and void.