Thunderbolt, you’ll get a kick out of this. Actually made me chuckle when I thought of it.
Ok, so, your argument seems to focus on the idea that marriage laws are in place to control reckless procreating, right? Well, guess what gay people don’t do – recklessly procreate! So wouldn’t gay marriage reduce reckless procreation if (given that who a person couples with is just a choice) people enter into homosexual couplings instead of heterosexual couplings?[/quote]
I am not following - are you saying gay marriage would help prevent homosexuals from the random engagement of heterosexual activity that might cause unwanted pregnancies?
[/quote]
Yes. Or lead bisexual men to homosexuality, preventing still other unwanted pregnancies. Or lead gay men to not try to force themselves straight, marry a woman, have kids, and eventually give up the lie.
Ok.
I disagree with a few parts here, but I’m running out to meet some friends. Quick version: I think extended family > nuclear family.
Also
“The union of one man, one woman is better than all the alternatives. Recall that bigamy/polygamy once existed in good standing (to a certain extent), but we turned our back on it, because we don’t like it. So, we privilege that preferred union above all others - yes, it is, in fact, “better”.”
Sounds like “its better because we say so” - tautology?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sounds like “its better because we say so” - tautology?[/quote]
No, it’s better because it is the best way to breed trust as well as raise children.
Although I do believe the term nuclear is used generally not in comparison with extended family, but that the nuclear family is included, so father and mother and children (this may or may not include extended, but at the minimum nuclear family compared to single parent families).
I disagree with a few parts here, but I’m running out to meet some friends. Quick version: I think extended family > nuclear family. [/quote]
But the debate isn’t between me and you as to which is better, or rather, that isn’t the point - what I am saying is that society has decided the nuclear family is better than the alternative, so it gets encouraged. You can disagree with that assessment, but it doesn’t make the assessment invalid.
No - I merely said what was decided, not why it was decided that way. No tautology in that statement.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You would have no problem being celibate and alone for the rest of your life? That’s a little unusual, but can you at least understand why most people would be offended if they were told they must either be celibate or marry someone contrary to their orientation? That is not happiness, by most people’s definition.[/quote]
No, if that is what I was supposed to do. I can understand what they are feeling, but the fact that they are called to live a chaste life does not change.
Jesus says in Matthew 19:8, “Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart.” After the fall, the hearts of man became hard. Noah got drunk (although not against the rules), Moses killed, Abraham lied and encouraged his wife to marry the Pharaoh instead of being killed, &c.
[quote]
More to the point, they clearly illustrate that marriage has not always been about the union of one man and one woman.[/quote]
So the exception proves the rule? [/quote]
What if they don’t agree with your religious beliefs? Just because you think that is what gays are “supposed to do” doesn’t mean they should be expected to adopt your beliefs, even if those beliefs were based on facts rather than faith, which they aren’t. Sorry dude, but we’re past the point of a church state, and equal rights are going to happen whether or not you’re on board.
You made a blanket statement that marriage has always been about the union of one man and one woman, and I provided several prominent examples to the contrary from your own scripture. Abraham didn’t actually lie about Sarah being his sister. Talk about “non-traditional marriages”…this paragon was in an incestuous marriage (Genesis 20:12). And where does it say Jacob had a hard heart? He was God’s chosen representative, by any standard, yet he married multiple women. So your standard of “traditional marriage” leaves a lot to be desired.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sounds like “its better because we say so” - tautology?[/quote]
No, it’s better because it is the best way to breed trust as well as raise children.
Although I do believe the term nuclear is used generally not in comparison with extended family, but that the nuclear family is included, so father and mother and children (this may or may not include extended, but at the minimum nuclear family compared to single parent families).[/quote]
I keep hearing that straight marriage is valuable because it provides stability and security for children.
But people keep ignoring my point that gays already have children, and will continue to have children. Despite your opposition to homosexuality, don’t you agree that these children would be better off if their gay parents were married rather than just boyfriends or girlfriends?
How is the possible as a matter of nature?
[/quote]
Plenty of ways. From what I understand technology may one day allow two members of the same sex to have a child with each of their DNA.
But, of course, none of it will matter, because it couldn’t happen accidently or recklessly.
"The first registered same-sex union bill was successfully passed in Denmark in June 1989. Prior to the legislation, a number of countries had passed acts recognizing same-sex couples under a unregistered cohabitation, though none of these were registered. Following the implantation in Denmark, a series of countries, mostly European, later passed bills that created a various form of same-sex union.
The first same-sex marriage bill to ever be voted on was passed in the Netherlands in December 2000 and went into force in 2001."
So, 22 years for same sex unions and about a decade for same sex marriage. Yet largescale poly/incest/beastial/object marriage movements have yet to materialize.
How is the possible as a matter of nature?
[/quote]
Plenty of ways. From what I understand technology may one day allow two members of the same sex to have a child with each of their DNA.
But, of course, none of it will matter, because it couldn’t happen accidently or recklessly.
"The first registered same-sex union bill was successfully passed in Denmark in June 1989. Prior to the legislation, a number of countries had passed acts recognizing same-sex couples under a unregistered cohabitation, though none of these were registered. Following the implantation in Denmark, a series of countries, mostly European, later passed bills that created a various form of same-sex union.
The first same-sex marriage bill to ever be voted on was passed in the Netherlands in December 2000 and went into force in 2001."
So, 22 years for same sex unions and about a decade for same sex marriage. Yet largescale poly/incest/beastial/object marriage movements have yet to materialize.
Weird, right?[/quote]
I agree. Children from a former heterosexual union, or from artificial insemination, or from adoption aren’t second class citizens. They benefit, and society benefits, from the security and stability of married gay parents, just like children and society benefit from the security and stability of married straight parents. Marriage benefits the family and society in both cases.
This doesn’t make sense. If homosexuality is natural - that is, a product of nature (and I am not here to argue its not) - then why must homosexuals have to go outside of their own nature to have children?
If nature wanted homosexuals to reproduce, wouldn’t there be a natural mechanism for it to happen?
[u]And the argument to Brother Chris is apparently that no one should be forced to act outside their nature in the name of a (false) higher priority - i.e., being chaste or staying with the mother of a homosexual man’s children after he discovers his homosexuality - if this is so, then why is it that homosexuals should indulge in “acting outside their nature” at their leisure in other aspects?
It doesn’t add up, and you’re trying to eat your cake and have it to. On one hand, you argue you are confined to your “nature” and that’s just the way it is, so everyone must get over it and not interfere with what nature has commanded…on the other, you are more than happy to avail yourself of acting outside your “nature” when it benefits you.
Can you sqaure this circle? Or is it simply a matter of “if I want it, I get it, and I can rationalize it all after the fact?”[/u]
Nature is a sentient thing now, with desires. Awesome.[/quote]
Negative, and you are starting to flail. See my post to Forlife (which he won’t answer).[/quote]
Why do you keep replying to me, when you made it clear a few weeks ago that you have no respect for me, consider me a liar, and can only respond in derogatory terms?
I would be happy to respond if you can agree to keep the discussion civil, and focus on the topic instead of insulting my character. A simple yes will do.
Why do you keep replying to me, when you made it clear a few weeks ago that you have no respect for me, consider me a liar, and can only respond in derogatory terms?[/quote]
Because my responses to points you are attempting to make add value to the argument against gay marriage, so it is worthwhile, even if you serve as a strawman (not the logical fallacy strawman).
I always focus on the topic until you introduce your character into the discussion by arguing in bad faith, assuming invidious motives of your opponents, or otherwise refuse to stick to the truth.
If you are prepared not to do those things, game on.
