The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

brightmorningstar · Aug 19, 2009

To MoonLancer,

lol, homosexuality is akin to lying stealing and adultery?

I think homosexual practice is, I understand you think differently but I am not lol.

Psudopod · Aug 19, 2009

In what way is it like lying and adultery? What harm does it cause?

brightmorningstar · Aug 19, 2009

To Coderhead,
I still see you as arguing from the pov of reproduction, the OP didnt ask that exactly.
The OP argument is that the man/woman union is natural because it can reproduce, not because it will or must. The argument is that if one allows the variation of same sex human union that can't, why would one limit any other union? To do so one would have to introduce other reasons.

The reason you cant address the question my friend is because to do so you would destroy your argument.

The dictionary definitions of homosexual are attraction/orientation to the same sex. NOT the same gender. The sexes therefore are male and female.

But you're not talking about popularity, you're talking about a specific definition, which you've still failed to provide. If elderly and infertile couples can get married and still be within your definition, then it's not logical to exclude homosexuals.

Homosexuals arent excluded, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. The union cant be based on homosexual and heterosexual people as there is no scientific proof people exist homosexual or heterosexual, and if one does it leads to the utter confusion of your statement.

brightmorningstar · Aug 19, 2009

To Psudopod,

In what way is it like lying and adultery? What harm does it cause?

Well it wasnt addressed to you it was addressed to the RevSJamison, assuming a Revereved seeks the word of God.
For a non believer I cant expect you to see harm in the same way or the similarity.

Psudopod · Aug 19, 2009

Well it wasnt addressed to you it was addressed to the RevSJamison, assuming a Revereved seeks the word of God.
For a non believer I cant expect you to see harm in the same way or the similarity.

So it is harmful or it is not?

CoderHead · Aug 19, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
But if I thought stealing lying and adultery and same sex relations were ok I probably wouldn't be bothered, would you?

Oh wow, good luck digging yourself out of that hole.

CoderHead · Aug 19, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
I still see you as arguing from the pov of reproduction, the OP didnt ask that exactly.
The OP argument is that the man/woman union is natural because it can reproduce, not because it will or must. The argument is that if one allows the variation of same sex human union that can't, why would one limit any other union? To do so one would have to introduce other reasons.

"Any other union" meaning what, exactly? Humans and Martians? Nobody's even suggesting that.

The OP is stating that a valid marriage is one that is founded on reproduction - of course, we're not entirely sure because he refuses to give us his definition of marriage. But when you factor in the valid marriages that don't result in offspring - either by choice or because of infertility - then you've got no argument against same-sex marriages.

brightmorningstar said:
The reason you cant address the question my friend is because to do so you would destroy your argument.

I actually did address the question. Where have you been?

brightmorningstar said:
The dictionary definitions of homosexual are attraction/orientation to the same sex. NOT the same gender. The sexes therefore are male and female.

So, the sexes are male and female...and the genders would be what?

I think we're all familiar with the definition of homosexual. I don't think we're all clear on the definition of marriage.

brightmorningstar said:
Homosexuals arent excluded, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman.

How is this the case? This marriage has absolutely no potential for reproduction, since neither the man nor the woman would be interested in sexual relations with the other. So you're saying this is a valid marriage even though there's -zero- potential for offspring?

brightmorningstar said:
The union cant be based on homosexual and heterosexual people as there is no scientific proof people exist homosexual or heterosexual, and if one does it leads to the utter confusion of your statement.

I'm 100% certain that both homosexual and heterosexual people exist. What makes you think they don't? Or are you saying that we're all either (a) asexual, (b) bisexual, or (c) that we make a choice as to which sex we're attracted to depending on how we feel that day but not because of an ingrained preference?

atomweaver · Aug 19, 2009

Another thought for another thread; if marriage is about procreation, why is this never mentioned in marriage vows? Take the classic, for example;

I (state your name) take (state S-O's name) to be my lawfully wedded husband/wife.
To Have and to Hold.
For better and for worse
in sickness and in health
'till death do us part.

I've been searching common marriage vows of the past 200 years, and haven't seen children mentioned, not once. If it were really a core, Christian issue and not some trumped up notion to attack gay marriage, one would think it would have been mentioned in one typical set of wedding vows from the past couple centuries...

MoonLancer · Aug 19, 2009

atomweaver said:
Another thought for another thread; if marriage is about procreation, why is this never mentioned in marriage vows? Take the classic, for example;...

This is a very good point, but its unlikely it will be addressed.

FlamingFemme · Aug 19, 2009

FlamingFemme said:
Did you marry your wife for FUN? Or did you marry her because you loved her, wanted to make a life with her, wanted to share your every moment with her, or maybe because your heart pounded whenever you saw her? Did you EVER stop to think that maybe those of us who are married to our same-sex partner married for the EXACT SAME REASONS you did? Just once, could you maybe just imagine that we love the same way you do? I married my wife because I fell in love with her. Very little (if any) of that had to do with sex. If you married for sex, I feel very sorry for you. However, I'm sure that you realize that most people marry for love, not sex. Just because we are not attracted to the opposite sex, doesn't mean that we are all a bunch of sex fiends. Did it ever occur to you that promiscuous people - straight, bi, gay, whatever - probably don't WANT to get married? And that maybe those of us who are fighting for that right are doing so because we are already in monogamous, committed, loving relationships? Relationships that are hard work, but are worth it because we love each other? Relationships that deserve legal recognition?
Just once, I would like for you to imagine what it would be like if you weren't allowed to marry your wife simply because of who she was.

I'm still waiting for a response to this post. Instead of claming that all gay people are nymphomaniacal fiends, maybe, just maybe, you could admit that we love, live, and marry just like you do - And we marry for the same reasons you do, too?

ToddNotTodd · Aug 19, 2009

fated said:
I did seek some gay related material, created during this period, which was positive, but found nothing substantial. It's always about hate and discrimination, even while seeming to admit other logic might exist like when one "comes out of the closet." Even the quote in the main stream was a shaming attack... and Obama's proposed that contrary logic does exist, even though he disagree with it. To bad I can't get that same concession on this thread, we might be able to have a discussion.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that we're finding flaws in your logic. There's no "shaming" as you keep saying, unless you're ashamed to be illogical.

CoderHead · Aug 19, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
unless you're ashamed to be illogical.

I would be. :o

Chazemataz · Aug 19, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To RevSJamison,
I would be disapointed if my own child said they were into stealing, lying adultery etc. But if I thought stealing lying and adultery and same sex relations were ok I probably wouldn't be bothered, would you?

Okay.
What if your child were a 4.0 student, never got into any trouble with the law, drugs, alchohol, had nice & well-behaved friends, was respectful, and all-around very successful? Most of the gay teens I've seen/met fit this bill, mainly because they usually only have a few close friends and aren't very popular. Of course, then I've also met some who are into drugs, lots of sex, and other things; but many are the former too.

If my child were stealing, then that would be BAD because they are violating the law, as well as taking things that others have earned due to their own hard work or recieved because of other's kindness.
If my child were into adultery, I'd be dissapointed because I've been cheated on and was an emotional wreck for about a month after it happened, and felt betrayed by someone I loved.
Lying isn't a good thing unless it is a white lie ("your hair looks nice, you're not fat", ect.) or to protect another from harm. Once you loose somebody's trust it takes a long time to get it back.

valuecard · Aug 19, 2009

Sorry I havent been participating in this discussion until now. Its just there have been so many responses and I barely had enough time to skim over half of em let alone read the whole lot. I would just like to add to my video, why do homosexuals want to change an institution that is as old as the oldest known civilisations. Why dont they just create a new ceremony especially for themselves, just dont call it marriage. Why do they want the one thing the law says they cant have? Just create something else and stop trying to change something that already is, and works just fine the way it is - male to female marraige

DeathMagus · Aug 19, 2009

valuecard said:
Sorry I havent been participating in this discussion until now. Its just there have been so many responses and I barely had enough time to skim over half of em let alone read the whole lot. I would just like to add to my video, why do homosexuals want to change an institution that is as old as the oldest known civilisations. Why dont they just create a new ceremony especially for themselves, just dont call it marriage. Why do they want the one thing the law says they cant have? Just create something else and stop trying to change something that already is, and works just fine the way it is - male to female marraige

Marriage is, indeed, quite old - but has gone through numerous major overhauls and changes throughout the years, some as recent as the last century. While marriage has existed for millennia, it would be false to state that the marriages of today are equivalent to marriages of even just 50 years ago.

Supernaut · Aug 19, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To RevSJamison,

brightmorningstar said:
I would be disapointed if my own child said they were into stealing, lying adultery etc. But if I thought stealing lying and adultery and same sex relations were ok I probably wouldn't be bothered, would you?

I would not have an issue with my child telling me that they were gay or bi.

nolongerhome · Aug 19, 2009

valuecard said:
Sorry I havent been participating in this discussion until now. Its just there have been so many responses and I barely had enough time to skim over half of em let alone read the whole lot. I would just like to add to my video, why do homosexuals want to change an institution that is as old as the oldest known civilisations. Why dont they just create a new ceremony especially for themselves, just dont call it marriage. Why do they want the one thing the law says they cant have? Just create something else and stop trying to change something that already is, and works just fine the way it is - male to female marraige

Why did people from different ethnic backgrounds want to marry each other when the oldest institution in the world and their culture told them "no, that isn't possible"?

Why did people from different religious background want to marry each other when the oldest institution in the world and their culture told them "no, that isn't possible"?

Why did people want to marry people of their own chosing, rather than the person selected by their parents or tribe, when the oldest institution in the world and their culture told them "no, that isn't possible"?

Simple answer to all of the changes to the institution over the years - more and more emphasis has been placed on marriage being a relationship between two loving people that want to join their lives, share experiences, support each other, show affection to each other, that is it has been shifted to being an institution of love, regardless of cultural, economic, racial or religious differences.

So, why do homosexuals want to be able to marry? Because they feel the same desires that all the people that pioneered early changes felt - love for someone that society told them they were not allowed to join in marriage for no other reason than that was how it had always been. Like those people in the past, they saw no reason why their relationships should be considered any different to those that had come before them, and therefore changed the institution to become more inclusive rather than start their own institution. They don't want their own different institution - they want to be accepted with the existing one.

David Brider · Aug 19, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
The dictionary definitions of homosexual are attraction/orientation to the same sex. NOT the same gender.

Yes, the same gender - do you still not grasp (despite it being pointed out to you repeatedly) that in this context "sex" and "gender" have the same meaning, i.e. whether a person is male or female)?

...there is no scientific proof people exist homosexual or heterosexual...

Actually, yes there is. There is no scientific proof of why most people are heterosexual and some are homosexual, but there is scientific proof that most are heterosexual and some are homosexual (people's responses to external stimuli can be measured to determine their sexual orientation).

David Brider · Aug 20, 2009

valuecard said:
I would just like to add to my video, why do homosexuals want to change an institution that is as old as the oldest known civilisations.

Firstly, to be pedantically accurate, it's same-gender couples, not necessarily homosexuals (a same-gender couple, just like an opposite-gender couple, can include one or two bisexuals - don't leave us out!).

Secondly, it's not about a desire to change marriage, just to be included within it. The change would be minimal. Think about it - marriage is about two people who are in love with each making a decision to make a formal commitment to spend the rest of their lives together at a hopefully joyful ceremony in front of their families, friends, and any god(s) in whom they may believe. That's certainly what I'm looking forward to for my marriage (now in less than a month) and see no good reason why same-gender couples should be prevented from taking part in the same.

Brieuse · Aug 20, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
The union cant be based on homosexual and heterosexual people as there is no scientific proof people exist homosexual or heterosexual[/size][/font]

Odd. I've seen quite a few of either team.

The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

brightmorningstar

Guest

Godspeed, Spacebat

brightmorningstar

Guest

brightmorningstar

Guest

Godspeed, Spacebat

Knee Dragger

Knee Dragger

Senior Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

The Flaming One

Iconoclast

Knee Dragger

Chazemataz

Guest

valuecard

Guest

Stater of the Obvious

What did they aim for when they missed your heart?

?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency