Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[celtic_silver]

That post was addressed to Erythritol but I’ll reply to your post anyway.

Actually whenever I'm on a forum allowing intellectual discussion, I do tend to try to take a few key points from previous points. You'll notice a few things from other posts besides Erythritol's one. I only ever try to discuss things to attempt to help improve my own understanding. I might seem a bit rough around the edges at times with the way I do things, but please do try to indulge me, it's all about the desire to learn from others after all...
I thank you in advance...

You just said that you are a Christian and so I’m writing this now basing this post in the way our religion handles sin (I’m a Christian Catholic myself).

It is true that a good Christian must be tolerant; a good Christian doesn’t reject someone just because they’re gay, just the same way that a good Christian is supposed to love and pray for everyone including sinners (actually principally for sinners) then again that doesn’t stop homosexuality from being a sin.

We don’t define “Sin” as something that will hurt someone or something that is politically incorrect. We define sin as “Not following God’s will”. But since God is the good guy, his will is in the best interest of humanity, and especially the human moral. You should know that many laws are based on a principle of moral which was based on a religious moral; some things that are illegal don’t necessarily hurt anyone, but are almost always considered immoral.

I know what you mean here, but I'm of the opinion that no man could ever truly understand the intrinsic weaving of the bible. I feel that none of us have quite achieved the understanding needed to properly interpret God's word. Due to this, I don't really think we can be sure of his will. The morals of an individual aren't really fixed in concrete neither, regardless of ties to any religion or in our cases Christian denomination.

mor·al play_w("M0417500") (môr

l, m

r

-)adj.1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

The laws of western society don't really seem to be based on Christian morals to me. No I'd say it's really Christian ethics.

eth·ic play_w("E0227900") (

th

k)n.1. a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" Gregg Easterbrook.

2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

And just because something is immoral, doesn't really mean we should ban the practice I believe. After all, Christian reasoning tells me God gave us the gift of free choice for a reason. I know the ability to choose can be seen as the result of original sin, but then I'd also argue that it was given to us for a reason. The lord works in mysterious ways after all...

Take for example Female prostitution, with is illegal in many places in the world, if I’m not mistaken it is illegal in most countries and states. I remember watching on a TV show (Pen & Teller) a program about how prostitution wasn’t a bad thing at all. How in places where prostitution was legal a woman could earn her living using her body in a way that would not attempt against her physical and/or mental health. The show focused on a legal House of prostitution where the sexual workers, had not only health care, didn’t get beaten (there was security), don’t do drugs etc, etc. I don’t want to get in detail so I hope you get the point (maybe you can find the episode online or something)

And yet for most prostitution is still some deplorable and that should be illegal, even when if it were legal no one would get hurt. In fact the state would benefic because legal hookers would pay taxes. [I’m not defending prostitution by the way just using it to illustrate my example]

I don't think prostitution should be illegal myself personally. Granted it can be seen as immoral, but so long as it's the person's choice, I believe that they should be allowed to do that if they desire. I feel we can try to talk them into doing things another way, but in the end it shouldn't be our decision. I don't and never will see myself as any better than a prostitute or anyone else who performs 'immoral' actions. We're all guilty of something...

Going back with the Christianity thing I assume most Christians will find homosexuality to be immoral and in many cases repulsive. Why? Mainly because is a sin. And why is it a sin? Because God create a man and a woman not a man and another man, it clearly wasn’t God’s will to have a man with another man or a woman with another woman, it was his will that there was a man and a woman, and that these two would be live together as if they were one.

I see it as being repulsive myself. But then by Christian ideals, gambling, drugs, sex before marriage and the like should be seen as equally repulsive and in some cases more-so due to them being in our ten commandments. Granted sodomy, desire and the like can be seen as adultery due to the homosexual people in question not being married, but then from what I know, homosexual marriage wasn't always banned and reviled as much as it is now. It was even going on after Jesus walked the earth for a century or four....
And I see marriage as the merging of two loving souls as an extension of the love that God shows us, myself. Why can't two homosexuals make this commitment. It's really things like sodomy and sexual desire that are what the Christian God is against, so what about those same sex couples wanting a pure relationship, yet to also be a couple in God's eyes?

DISCLAIMER TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT CELTIC SILVER:
THIS is just the religion argument you have probably hear like five thousand times already, if you have argue it before there is no need to reply to this particular post.




You should know that adultery is not ignored by the law, just because you won’t get any jail time for cheating on your wife doesn’t mean that the law doesn’t care. For example in a divorce case if one of the two people involve committed adultery, he or she will get the worse deal at the time of good repartition and probably children custody.

Thanks for reminding me, I had long forgot about those

Actually, the very reason for my first post, was that most of the posts I saw before mine were based on religious ideas. Religion and law are very closely intertwined in the western countries most of the posters from here seem to belong to, and to ignore the impact of one on the other would not be the wisest move...

And I have seen many cases where despite an incident of adultery, the child has gone with the parent who committed the sin, especially if it is the mother. The law sees what it wants most of the time. It is the law of man after all, and man lacks the infinite wisdom a God may have...

 

[SapphireStar]

Thanks for reminding me, I had long forgot about those

Ha ha ha ... well we dont ...
Your links okay as its linked to this forum.
But please keep this civil people, Ive asked once and if people continue to get very prissy with each other, then we may have to hand out some infractions.

 

[Kibbies]

I am reposting what I said just a little earlier because it pertains to this same thought that I have quoted below. It is from one of Erythritol's paragraphs, but I did not edit out the important sections to the thought (I part quoted is about marriage being legal, and the ellipsis is about the Catholic Church not being allowed to tell others what to do).

[...] In America, marriage is no longer just a religious ceremony. Marriage is a LEGAL contract. This contract gives spouses numerous benefits (that I have listed in a previous post). Because homosexuals are not allowed to marry (with the exception of one state), they are legally denied these benefits. That is legally discriminatory.

I do not see the discrimination in this, but I do understand where you are coming from and understand your position.

Everyone, heterosexual and homosexual, has the same restrictions: we cannot marry whomever we want. We all have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex and the equal restriction of not being able to marry someone of the same sex. Nobody can marry anyone of their choosing by law. That is why it is prohibited to marry your sibling, your kid, another married person, or whomever else that you are not allowed to marry. Everyone has the same restriction.

What gay marriage is arguing is that they want to marry a person that they want to marry. I live in Kansas, but I may not be involved in the politics here. If I were really interested and cared more about the politics in say... Arizona, then I would argue that I want to go vote there instead because I prefer voting in Arizona than in Kansas. However, I cannot vote wherever I want just because I want to vote there. There are restrictions on voting.

These restrictions may seem unfair, but they are equal. Nobody can marry somebody of their choosing. Everyone is subject to the same restrictions no matter what their orientation is, and allowing gay marriage as an exception to the restriction would be unequal and unfair to the rest of the suppressed groups. Allowing that would open the door for everyone else: brother-sister, father-daughter, old guy-little girl, man-horse (I think this one has happened somewhere).

Ultimately, the decision is with the state government, not the federal. Each state chooses their position on gay marriage just like they do all other powers that are not given to US Congress. As a conservative on many issues, I do not like to give the federal government much say in anything, and would be against a federal amendment for or against gay marriage. This is the type of thing that each state should be able to decide upon rather than having Congress decide our morality on the issue.

 

[celtic_silver]

These restrictions may seem unfair, but they are equal. Nobody can marry somebody of their choosing. Everyone is subject to the same restrictions no matter what their orientation is, and allowing gay marriage as an exception to the restriction would be unequal and unfair to the rest of the suppressed groups. Allowing that would open the door for everyone else: brother-sister, father-daughter, old guy-little girl, man-horse (I think this one has happened somewhere).

That's pretty much why I see these restrictions as unfair. As I said in my first post in this thread, there are reasons that animal/human and relative marriages are banned. Animals wouldn't really have the understanding needed for a marriage, nor the desire to marry for what marriage stands for. They may have some affection for a person for whatever reason, but that is where it would end. Relatives not marrying is all about the genes. If they were to try to procreate as many married couples do, the offspring would be born with a weaker set of genetic materials and this could cause unwanted problems (and not necessarily the six fingers/toes neither...).
And the reason underage people are not allowed legally to marry is also due to the procreation thing, isn't it? Their bodies just aren't ready for it....
If you just meant age gap, there are tons of married couples with larger numbers of years between their ages. For examples, just look at some of the celebrities here and there....

What I don't understand I guess is that there seems to be no major reason like the ones I've stated above against two members of the same sex marrying. It seems like gay marriage just isn't taboo...

Basically what I'm saying is, what is the reason for this restriction? Just because everyone follows it doesn't make it right...

 

[Kibbies]

The reasoning that I see for it goes on the slippery slope argument which you've probably heard before.

If a court were to rule that same-sex marriages would be an exception to the restriction, then where would the breaking of the restrictions end? As soon as that minority is about to marry, then what will the father-daughter couples have to say? If same-sex people can marry, then the father-daughter couples will argue that they should be able to marry as well. Even though the child may not be mature enough to understand what it is that they are exactly doing, who is it that has the moral ground to tell them that they cannot marry. It would be discriminatory for same-sex people to be able to marry but not the father-daughter.

Coming up with an argument for the father-daughter marriage not to happen (same gene pool and the maturity of the child) will be more difficult when gay marriage is allowed. One of the arguments for against gay marriage is that they cannot procreate, which many argue is what marriage is meant for. Yet if a brother and a sister were to want to marry, it would be restricted because they would be mixing the same gene pool. Not allowing them to marry because of that would be discriminatory against them just because they happen to be from the same gene pool. It would be unfair just because they were born brother and sister.

What I am trying to get at is that once the restriction is ignored for same-sex marriage, the unfairness of not being able to marry is still on the other minorities. The brother-sister would probably argue "The same-sex couples were about to marry even though they cannot procreate, but they love each other so they should be able to marry. But we cannot marry each other because were are from the same gene pool even though we love each other alot?" Loving each other would be the only requirement and expected product of being married, and that would open the door for a lot of odd couples to argue their way past the restriction as well. I would say that the restriction is in place to prevent our society from becoming one where the different couples are prevalent in order to protect society. Society decided (either religiously or through observation--a man and a woman are the only ones that can actually procreate, and that they should be from different families to keep the gene pool strong) that heterosexual marriage is the most natural and important for society.

 

[Jazzel]

“Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common”

Dorothy Parker

I'm not going to expalin why the slippery slope is logically unsound. I'm just going to suggest that, if you live in the UK, read Tony Hope's "Medical Ethics : A Very Short Introducton" for the arguments proving it unsound, or to google the Sorites paradox. For that matter, just read any Ethics textbook on the slippery slope for why it's not very good to bandy about.

 

[Erythritol]

Yeah, allowing two gay men to marry is totally unfair to people who want to marry horses *rolls eyes* Give me a fucking break. A horse isn't the same SPECIES as a human. It's absurd and extremely insulting that you would even compare the two situations. And children? They aren't old enough to a) physically have sex b) deal with the emotional consequences and c) give their consent legally.

Also, the 1800s called, they want their idea of marriage back. Marriage isn't about procreation anymore. Like I've said many, many times, there are a lot of legal benefits. You don't see the discrimination in denying homosexual couples legal benefits that heterosexual couples have? Um...that would, I believe, make you discriminatory. Why should heterosexual couples get those legal benefits and not homosexual couples? Because the heterosexual couple can produce children and the homosexual couple cannot? That's a pretty faulty argument. There are many straight people who are infertile and incapable of producing children. Should they be denied the legal benefits of marriage too?

Please answer this question, because I'm curious. What is your good and rational reason for denying homosexual couples the legal benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy? And god, don't talk to me about horses and incest. That's so insulting.

 

[Finnegan III]

What's this obsession with wanting to make babies anyway?

Is there some sort of shortage in babies we're getting here?

 

[The Phantarch]

It shouldn't be a huge fuss. I mean everyone is slagging off racists now (can't say I blame them) whilst they were everywhere not too long ago. The same thing is going to happen Homophobes will be regarded as a low, pathetic type of people in time and to be quite frank I want that time to come soon. I can't stand to see sexuality causing such a fuss.

What's this obsession with wanting to make babies anyway?

Is there some sort of shortage in babies we're getting here?

Apparently the population is fluctuating but is going steadily down. I however doubt that's the reason.

 

[AkaneTerra]

Don't see anything wrong with it. Some religions are against it, and that's their problem. They have very uneeded homophobic attitudes. It should because they love each other, and just because they can't have babies and apparently 'wrong' isn't a good reason to just say 'Nope, you're not getting married, unless you're marrying a man/woman.'

 

[Finnegan III]

Apparently the population is fluctuating but is going steadily down. I however doubt that's the reason.

Probably best for it to go down, as we're finding it harder to support ourselves.

 

[Nyte]

I ,quite frankly don't give a damn. If A guy wants to stuff himself in the ass of another guy and they're cool wit it, I'm cool wit it. That mean less competition for streaight guys. If they like pickles that means more pie for me.

Legalize it, what's the risk?

 

[The Phantarch]

I ,quite frankly don't give a damn. If A guy wants to stuff himself in the ass of another guy and they're cool wit it, I'm cool wit it. That mean less competition for streaight guys. If they like pickles that means more pie for me.

Legalize it, what's the risk?

It's already legal in most of the world as far as I know. It's just religious up-their-own-ass countries that keep it illegal. One question though; did you have to be quite so graphic.

 

[Lionheart3k]

I agree with Phantarch...not so graphical please !

My opinion..well i do not agree with it, i don't think its natural and find it very disgusting. But i do however sympathise for how people feel, so if thats how they feel and what they want to do then i wont go barging in with aggression..

 

[The Phantarch]

I agree with Phantarch...not so graphical please !

My opinion..well i do not agree with it, i don't think its natural and find it very disgusting. But i do however sympathise for how people feel, so if thats how they feel and what they want to do then i wont go barging in with aggression..

So in other words you are a non-radical homoophobe. I'll say nothing else.

 

[Fusilli]

In Yemen homosexuality is punishable by death =O

That is shocking, i mean, what if you were there and accidentally fell onto another guy's lips?? Death?!

Also:
"degrades human dignity. It's unnatural and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings?" - robert mugabe
That is not true! You do get gay animals, it's just how some people are.

ANyhoo, I am for gay marriage, not because I am, but people can't help if they are gay and they should have the same rights as everyone else. If they want to be with the one they love forever, why stop them?

What's this obsession with wanting to make babies anyway?

Is there some sort of shortage in babies we're getting here?

Yes, actually

 

[Hera Ledro]

Homosexual marriage is legal in the majority of the world, BUT, the parts of the world where it isn't legal have HUGE issues. At least five of them, don't underestimate this number, give death penalty for being homosexual.

But, back on topic. I am a very pro-homosexual. I'm not a homo, but I am pro-homo. I say, let them marry. It doesn't affect you, it really doesn't, so get over it. Let them get on with their lives.

 

[Vergil]

People are people. They shouldn't be treated differently just because their sexuality has a different prefix.

 

[jammi568]

Homosexuality

Being homosexual, this means that you fancy a person of the same sex that you are e.g. maleXmale se7. According to a recent study http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...BA35751C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all:

"In the British study, 6.1 percent of men reported having had a homosexual experience and 1.4 percent said they had had a homosexual partner in the last five years."

Unfortunatly, I don't have the figures for America, but I suspect that they are proportionally higher.

That was just a basic outline and some statistics. Now for the questions to get this thread going:

1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

These are just some basic questions to get the ball rolling. If you have any other questions, feel free to post and answer them.

 

[FallenAngel]

1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?
No. Cos, well i'm not into girls XD

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?
Well to be honest i don't really care if it's "right" or "wrong" i just say if they're happy why not let them be? They don't do any harm.
3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?
Well it depends, Just because they're gay/lesbian doesn't mean they are going to be bad parents. But then again it depends on how they raise the kiddo. Hey, if they want a family let them adopt