[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, it seems like you would support the criminalization of homosexuality altogether, enforcement issues aside. Am I correct?[/quote]
No you’re not correct. However I’d support the criminalisation of sodomy and that includes men sodomising women. I guess that would make me some kind of sodomophobe or something?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, it seems like you would support the criminalization of homosexuality altogether, enforcement issues aside. Am I correct?[/quote]
No you’re not correct. However I’d support the criminalisation of sodomy and that includes men sodomising women. I guess that would make me some kind of sodomophobe or something?[/quote]
It makes you someone who is unsettlingly comfortable with Big Brother’s reach.
Edit: And someone who has an unsettlingly lot in common with the proponents of Sharia law.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[/quote]
I will ignore the word “abhorrent” because its place in this discussion is self-evidently inappropriate and fatuous. I don’t care what you find disgusting and neither does anyone else. And your personal bigotries are sure as hell not basis for legislation.
[/quote]
You shouldn’t ignore the word “abhorrent” because at least its a truthful statement as to why he opposes gay marriage. My belief is that the true, actual and sole reason the vast majority of people oppose gay marriage is because they find homosexuality abhorrent and they want to prevent the state’s supposed legitimization of the “homosexual agenda” by recognizing gay marriage. I’d prefer to fight the fight based on the real reasons driving the opposition rather than fake reasons concocted solely to avoid con-law problems.
[/quote]
Very well said.
But here’s the thing: I’m not in the business of turning the prejudiced around, so once they admit that they oppose gay marriage because it’s just so icky, I really have little more to say. It’s just not worth the effort. And they are a dying breed anyway.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
And you never showed that this was anything more than an opinion.
Abhorrent and unnatural by what standard and according to whom.
[/quote]
According to mores and norms of our society dating back thousands of years.
[quote]
I will ignore the word “abhorrent” because its place in this discussion is self-evidently inappropriate and fatuous. I don’t care what you find disgusting and neither does anyone else. [/quote]
As I said before, it’s not my opinion it’s based on what our society believes and has believed for thousands of years.
And I’ll ignore that. The fact is the homosexual agenda is not about equal rights. Most gays don’t want to marry or live in monogamous relationships. For the gay rights lobby gay “marriage” is merely a vehicle to attack traditional marriage and monogamy.
[quote]
Unnatural: again, this will come as news to the millions of people who have an extremely strong and extremely natural urge to engage in homosexual activity.[/quote]
Dude, did you read anything I said about this before? Read my previous post where I provide a number of definitions of “unnatural.” It would come as a surprise to them that homosexual activity is considered ‘inconsistent’ with our social norms? It would come as a surprise to them that it’s ‘not in accordance with accepted standards of behaviour?’[/quote]
“Based on what our society believes.” You may want to check the opinion polls on gay marriage. They’re not looking good for this argument.
And again, what “our society” believed thousands of years ago (though I’ll note that “our society” didn’t exist thousands of years ago in any shape or form) has nothing to do with this. That something has been said before does not make it wise or correct. Not even if it’s been said a million times.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
“Based on what our society believes.” You may want to check the opinion polls on gay marriage. They’re not looking good for this argument.[/quote]
You’ll have to read our exchanges again. The society I’m referring to, the one he described, would already be in the business of commercially producting designer children for two men. That’s the society I was referring to. Such a society will also probably have already discovered a way to screen for and correct homosexuality. Perhaps by then even offering it as routine pre-natal care. If it’s biological. Homosexuality, if biological, will for all intents and purposes disappear in developed nations. And, like now, it’ll have no impact.
This has nothing do with what a society says. It only has to do with recognizing a reality. One man and one woman are the smallest reproducing unit. Homosexual relationships deserve no recognition from the state. It would be faddish emotional bigotry to elevate homosexuality to a status it doesn’t deserve.
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s the society I was referring to. Such a society will also probably have already discovered a way to screen for and correct homosexuality. Perhaps by then even offering it as routine pre-natal care. If it’s biological. Homosexuality, if biological, will for all intents and purposes disappear in developed nations. And, like now, it’ll have no impact.
[/quote]
Detecting something unwanted before its born, we already have methods to “fix” those problems.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This has nothing do with what a society says. It only has to do with recognizing a reality. One man and one woman are the smallest reproducing unit. Homosexual relationships deserve no recognition from the state.
[/quote]
Marriage recognition from the state simply provides rights and protections to individuals who decide to be in that contract. The smallest reproductive unit already has another name, its called “the smallest reproductive unit” and has nothing to do with marriage today. By definition the smallest reproductive unit requires 2 people of opposite sex who can produce offspring, marriage does not require fertilization tests so that requirement is out. Marriage is not a recognition of reality, it is what society says it is, without society there would be no marriage in the first place.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]
Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s the society I was referring to. Such a society will also probably have already discovered a way to screen for and correct homosexuality. Perhaps by then even offering it as routine pre-natal care. If it’s biological. Homosexuality, if biological, will for all intents and purposes disappear in developed nations. And, like now, it’ll have no impact.
[/quote]
Detecting something unwanted before its born, we already have methods to “fix” those problems.[/quote]
If biological, they will simply correct it, or circumvent it in the first place. If biological, it’s not a matter of if medical science be able to do this, but when. And folks, we’re talking about correcting orientation towards reproductive organs. No need need for quotes. This is a society that keeps it legal to abort the same child. So, a genetic or hormonal therapy that allows the same to child to direct it’s attention to the opposite sex, making it more likely to naturally reproduce and have viable offspring in it’s lifetime, won’t have an serious legal challenges.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This has nothing do with what a society says. It only has to do with recognizing a reality. One man and one woman are the smallest reproducing unit. Homosexual relationships deserve no recognition from the state.
[/quote]
Marriage recognition from the state simply provides rights and protections to individuals who decide to be in that contract. The smallest reproductive unit already has another name, its called “the smallest reproductive unit”…[/quote]
No, it’s called marriage. We do this because it’s the reproductive unit.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It makes you someone who is unsettlingly comfortable with Big Brother’s reach.
[/quote]
Not at all. One of the duties of government is to represent, maintain and uphold the values, customs and traditions of society that over the course of centuries have established our cultural identity. As Burke said, the social contract is a pact with the living, the dead and those yet to be born.
[quote]
Edit: And someone who has an unsettlingly lot in common with the proponents of Sharia law.[/quote]
On the contrary, I believe in the right of everyone to practice their religion or practice no religion. I believe in private property rights and individual liberty. I oppose any form of theocracy.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]
Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]
In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…
If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Marriage recognition from the state simply provides rights and protections to individuals who decide to be in that contract. The smallest reproductive unit already has another name, its called “the smallest reproductive unit” and has nothing to do with marriage today. By definition the smallest reproductive unit requires 2 people of opposite sex who can produce offspring…[/quote]
False. It simply requires a male and female. Desire to have children or not, and abnormalities, do not unmake the reproductive sexes.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
“Based on what our society believes.” You may want to check the opinion polls on gay marriage. They’re not looking good for this argument.
[/quote]
In all 32 states where gay “marriage” has been put to the vote it has been rejected. Not once has it been supported via popular vote - it’s only been enacted legislatively.
See above. It is believed to this day. And clearly, we live in a Judeo-Christian society.
Its on the ballot in Washington State and currently polling ahead. So that stat might change in the next two weeks.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Its on the ballot in Washington State and currently polling ahead. So that stat might change in the next two weeks. [/quote]Oh this country will not rest until it strangles itself in it’s own perversion. I expect it to be the law of the land probably in my lifetime.
I agree with your second sentence.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In the way I have already described. Sodomy is a deviant sexual practice that should not be condoned for the good of the civil society - i.e., so we don’t have as many sexual deviants in our society and so people who have such urges will be less likely to act upon them.[/quote]
I wonder this, to many people ( obviously men ) who are not agree with gay marriage because its involved sodomy, how about lesbian marriage??? they dont do sodomy right?
And how about this fact, that many straight women cannot get orgasm from penetration sex, they only get orgasm from clitoral stimulation, oral sex, petting… so for them having sex with women is more natural right? because having sex with women ( except wearing strap-on ) usually involved longer oral sex and foreplay ( most men only want to stick their dick in pussies ) compared to having sex with men. So heterosexual sex for that kind of women is not natural? No, is natural, because those straight women are sexually attracted to men, so even having sex with men are including penetration sex, they enjoy it more because they attracted to men.
That’s the same cases for gay men, they do sodomy not because its natural, because its what feels good for them , because they attracted to men ( although the fact is men can have prostate stimulation from anal penetration ). Those gay men would not like sodomy if it doing by woman who wearing strap-on. Its not about the act, its about the attraction.
The only unnatural thing about same sex marriage is they can do reproduction. But what if we think those are really need to avoided exploding human population on earth? I think that’s why there are homosexual sex in human and animals, its natural and needed to control population.
And sorry for my bad english, not my first language.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Marriage recognition from the state simply provides rights and protections to individuals who decide to be in that contract. The smallest reproductive unit already has another name, its called “the smallest reproductive unit” and has nothing to do with marriage today. By definition the smallest reproductive unit requires 2 people of opposite sex who can produce offspring…[/quote]
False. It simply requires a male and female. Desire to have children or not, and abnormalities, do not unmake the reproductive sexes.
[/quote]
Something that cannot reproduce cannot be called a reproductive unit