A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

[twenty1blakjack]

The current mainstream American culture is that a marriage consists of one male and one female. Redefining that as a male and male, or female and female relationship thus opens the door to other changes in the defintion of marriage: Polygamy (already being sued for), incestuous (already being seriously argued for), and bestial (already seriously proposed).

Those situations are very different from gay marrigage.

Polygamy- degrading to a sex (usually female) as unimportant and requiring several to please one of the other sex.

Incestuous- affects the children

bestial- An animal and a human cannot produce fertile offspring. Also, an animal cannot vow to love another forever.

All of those will not be legalized for those reasons.

Homosexual- love between two CONSENTING ADULTS who vow to remain together for life

 

[twenty1blakjack]

Marriage is a sacrement and I don't care what has happened in the past or in other countries, where I am today I'll argue it to my death that marriage is between a man and woman because marriage was created for the safe and logical continuance of the human species in a monogamous manner contrary to what is natural for almost all creatures on earth.

What I'd really like to understand is what function marriage serves to those who do not see it as a religious act.

1- Monogamous matter is observed in far from almost all creaturs, only the ones which are self-aware. Basically, all primates, plus dolphins.

2- interesting you would bring up natural for almost all creatures on earth when many animals have been observed in homosexual activity. www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

3- My parents are completely non-religious, but they married 25 years ago. They married because they were in love, and wanted to promise themselves to each other for their lives.

 

[morningstar2651]

The current mainstream American culture is that a marriage consists of one male and one female. Redefining that as a male and male, or female and female relationship thus opens the door to other changes in the defintion of marriage: Polygamy (already being sued for), incestuous (already being seriously argued for), and bestial (already seriously proposed).

Logical fallacies:
Wishful thinking
Argumentum ad metum
Argumentum ad baculum!!!
Fallacy of the excluded middle
Argumentum ad antiquitam
Argumentum ad odium
Ignoratio elenchi
I'm tired of pointing out all the things wrong with your argument. Next time, cite sources, show proof, and use some logic.

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

Marriage without religion is a physical manifestation of the love between two consenting adults.

 

[morningstar2651]

Marriage is a sacrement and I don't care what has happened in the past or in other countries, where I am today I'll argue it to my death that marriage is between a man and woman because marriage was created for the safe and logical continuance of the human species in a monogamous manner contrary to what is natural for almost all creatures on earth.

argumentum ad antiquitam

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

I just noticed something interesting in a wikipedia article... an example for slippery slope logical fallacies.

"If we allow gay marriage, people will soon want to marry children and animals as well."

See the article here

Obviously such an argument is silly, and I'm wishing that anyone who argued that in the past would just cite some evidence for those views already, please!

EDIT: Wow, I typed the wrong cite there, guess it was getting a little late there for me. *laughs*

 

[Nathan David]

For the lack of better terminology to use, the same right that easy divorce tramples, my right to have a relationship that means something in the eyes of God.

How does easy divorce trample your right to have a relationship that means something in the eyes of God.

Marriage is a sacrement

Religious marriage is a sacrament. No one is trying to legislate a change in religious definitions of marriage.

Civil marriage is a civil contract. Civil marriage is what people are trying to address through the law.

What I'm trying to point out is sexuality should not be a basis for determining marriage.

?!?!?!?

That's like saying the effects of alcohol on the human body should not be a basis for determining laws regulating production, sale, and consumption of alcohol.

What I'd really like to understand is what function marriage serves to those who do not see it as a religious act.

It is a way to publicly recognize a romantic and sexual partnership between two people who pledge to remain in this partnership for life.

 

[Nathan David]

My parents are completely non-religious, but they married 25 years ago. They married because they were in love, and wanted to promise themselves to each other for their lives.

This applies to most of my friends and many of my relatives as well.

 

[Sphere]

Caprice]Without a common frame of reference it is impossible to discuss this subject in a manner that you would accept. That doesn't make me any less right or wrong, it just means that no matter what I say I know you'll dismiss me as tho I'm retarded.

You're dodging the question. Please provide examples on how two males or two females getting married will directly affect you and/or your family in a real negative manner.

Caprice]
Marriage is a sacrement and I don't care what has happened in the past or in other countries, where I am today I'll argue it to my death that marriage is between a man and woman because marriage was created for the safe and logical continuance of the human species in a monogamous manner contrary to what is natural for almost all creatures on earth.

Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage before getting it annulled, Jennifer Lopez has had multiple marriages and divorces. Speaking of divorce, it has a rather high rate. So it seems unfortunately, many heterosexuals do not consider marriage to be the sacrement you desperately desire it to be. Please explain why homosexuals should be denied the rights that many heterosexuals take for granted.

 

[Jetgirl]

People who have children, whom they don't want in homosexual relationships, therefore, have an argument against gay marriage.

I don't know if this is your argument or you were giving an example, but either way:

The majority of homosexuals I know and know of have relationships regardless of whether they're allowed to get married or not.

Imagine straight people not having relationships because straight marriage wasn't legal. Yeah right.

EDITED: to add- that was dumb, I really really need to look at how many posts are in the darn thread before I respond to something on the first page.

 

[Caprice]

2- interesting you would bring up natural for almost all creatures on earth when many animals have been observed in homosexual activity. www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

I will research this more thoroughly, I have never found anything to suggest that homosexuality was normal other than for temporary gratification (such as men in prisons).

argumentum ad antiquitam

Might I ask what this is supposed to mean, it doesn't mean anything to me -- Is not in english, although I understand you are trying to point out some sort of error in my thought process. Pointing out errors in an offencive manner (and a manner which cannot be understood by the listener) is somewhat self-defeating is it not?

Argumentum ad metum
Argumentum ad baculum!!!
Fallacy of the excluded middle
Argumentum ad odium
Ignoratio elenchi

Care to define these for me too while you're at it? I'm aparently too stupid to understand what you're saying.

I'm tired of pointing out all the things wrong with your argument. Next time, cite sources, show proof, and use some logic.

Logic is not everything my friend, why else would we have emotions and instincts that argue with logic? Also, logic is entirely relative, just like pretty much everything else. Also, proof is not needed in my opinion to show that sticking my sexual organ into the rectal cavity of another male is kinda pointless.

Religious marriage is a sacrament. No one is trying to legislate a change in religious definitions of marriage.

Civil marriage is a civil contract. Civil marriage is what people are trying to address through the law.

Is not the definition of religious marriage what we are arguing. You are on "Christian Forums", I assume you are attacking the religious concept of marriage. Another thing I cannot understand, why someone with such obvious anti-religious tendancies would even bother arguing about marraige on a Christian Forum. Or is it just that you enjoy the idea of destroying someone's belief system?

Obviously we are not arguing about the same thing.

 

[Caprice]

This is an interesting page on logic and logical fallacies that I'd like to suggest those of you whose arguments are based on logic read.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/howto.htm

Most importantly in my opinion:

"The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite."

"For many other truths, we must rely on faith. That God exists, that right is better than wrong, that truth is a virtue: these are beliefs which cannot be confirmed by the senses, and reflect therefore a certain world view."

I will be spending a bit of time reading on this page now methinks, more than likely it can answer the questions I had about the less-than-english terms above... looks to me so far like I could say that some of these same fallacies apply to those who argue against me.

 

[Jetgirl]

This is an interesting page on logic and logical fallacies that I'd like to suggest those of you whose arguments are based on logic read.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/howto.htm

Most importantly in my opinion:

"The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite."

"For many other truths, we must rely on faith. That God exists, that right is better than wrong, that truth is a virtue: these are beliefs which cannot be confirmed by the senses, and reflect therefore a certain world view."

I will be spending a bit of time reading on this page now methinks, more than likely it can answer the questions I had about the less-than-english terms above... looks to me so far like I could say that some of these same fallacies apply to those who argue against me.

You're referencing a page on logical argument that advises you to rely on FAITH?

Gah. Erk.

Choking on irony.

 

[morningstar2651]

Sorry if my usage of Latin was too difficult to decipher and/or google.

The fact of the matter still remains that you have proven nothing and cited no sources. I recommend you not rely on faith alone if you want me to seriously join in this debate.

Please excuse me while I go laugh at the page you posted, it sounds amusing.

 

[Forever42]

Please excuse me while I go laugh at the page you posted, it sounds amusing.

Also, similiar to what I stated in my other post, the opinions on this page are no official definition of anything. They may have the correct definition of the logical fallacies but the rest is opinion. It isn't rude to point out logical fallacies - logical fallacies negate an argument and remove it from the debate.

A better website to add to this discussion can be found on Yahoo search (again, cannot post a link yet). If you search for "debate logical fallacies ad" (without quotes), the third result down is from a university, which would be less biased than someone's personal website (which is what the above link is).

One of the uses of knowing fallacies in a debate is to be able to point out the other side's fallacies and explain why that particular argument can't be used.

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

I believe this was the site you meant, Forever42. If it wasn't, just shout at me and I'll fix it.

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

I have never found anything to suggest that homosexuality was normal other than for temporary gratification (such as men in prisons).

That comment saddened me. Do you mean that homosexuality is only normal in the circumstance of men in jail forcing themselves on another person? Or perhaps that's an example of the "normalness" of homosexuality? I must strongly disagree with both lines of thinking, strongly indeed.

 

[Forever42]

I believe this was the site you meant, Forever42. If it wasn't, just shout at me and I'll fix it.

Ah, thank you! I feel lost without a link-posting ability. I'm trying to lurk first, post later.

Edit: at that, there's another great site (that has citations for its information) at fallacyfiles dot org.

 

[Volos]

Without a common frame of reference it is impossible to discuss this subject in a manner that you would accept. That doesn't make me any less right or wrong, it just means that no matter what I say I know you'll dismiss me as tho I'm retarded.

Nonsense. We are members of the same society, culture and language we have a common frame of reference already. But even if this were not the case the very fact that we are both human beings gives us a common frame of reference. One need not be a particular color to have understood the racial tensions and the disregard for civil rights that took place in the country of South Africa over the last few decades.



You have implied that some people (perhaps you or perhaps hot you) fear the loss of rights with legal recognition of same sex marriage. I have simply asked you to clarify what rights would be lost.



In the meantime you have dodged the question.



Please share with us exactly how legal recognition of my nine year marriage to Alex negatively impacts your marriage.

I'm not entirely sure I understand how "empathy" will help anyone understand things of a spiritual nature when he or she is decidedly closed minded to such things.

again you are claiming some sort of harm but fail to state exactly what that harm is.

Are we to understand that you personally are spiritually harmed by Canada’s recognition of same sex marriages? How?

And further exactly who is “closed minded”?

The harm has nothing to do with individual discomfort,

then what is this mysterious harm you keep talking about?

For the lack of better terminology to use, the same right that easy divorce tramples, my right to have a relationship that means something in the eyes of God.

Legal recognition of same sex marriage prevents you form entering into a relationship? I find that amazing.

Marriage is a sacrement

yes I am well aware of that, it is a sacrament in my religion as well. That is why I took, and continue to take my vows to Alex so very seriously.

and I don't care what has happened in the past or in other countries, where I am today I'll argue it to my death that marriage is between a man and woman because marriage was created for the safe and logical continuance of the human species in a monogamous manner contrary to what is natural for almost all creatures on earth.

there are those who would argue to the death that the world is flat, that does not make them right.







if it were contrary as you claim then please explain why it is known in all cultures.

If you consider the fact that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, prejudice, then I guess not.

can you provide any legitimate evidence to support your claim that sexual orientation is not an inborn trait?



I have searched for years for such evidence and can tell you that there exists no (repeat) no published scientific, anthropological, sociological, psychological study that indicates that homosexuality is the result of choice, how one was raised, one’s relationship with either parent, one’s family structure, one’s childhood experiences or any other social, psychological or familial trait.

If you know of such a published study please share it with us all.

Equal rights my fanny.

yes equal whether you personally like it or not.

What I'm trying to point out is sexuality should not be a basis for determining marriage.

but you made this very claim earlier in your post to quote you:

“marriage was created for the safe and logical continuance of the human species in a monogamous manner”

which makes your definition of marriage sexual.

Marriage is what it is, it does not need to be redefined.

exactly. No one is changing marriage, what is needed is equal rights for all married couples. marriage does not need to be redefined to exclude same sex couples.

Just because it may have been redefined in the past is not reason enough to redefine it again and again or what point is there in even having it at all?

my point exactly. Why should marriage be redefined in support of personal prejudice?

I think actually it would be more accurate to say that I married my wife so she could get a few benefits, although that isn't really accurate.

if this is even somewhat accurate then your wife has my sympathies.

What I'd really like to understand is what function marriage serves to those who do not see it as a religious act.

You would have to ask an atheist this question.

Strangely enough I am not concerned with what an atheist thinks marriage is, his and or her views do not change my views on marriage. neither does it change my marriage in any way including spiritually.

 

[Believer-in-Christ]

I don't think it's right. It should be between a man and a woman.