Thread: Homosexual Marriage (last part)

The combining of the terms 'homosexual' (same sex intercourse) and 'marriage' (commitment between male-female for lineage protection), is an OXYMORON of terms.


Did God tell me that?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

The combining of the terms 'homosexual' (same sex intercourse) and 'marriage' (commitment between male-female for lineage protection), is an OXYMORON of terms.


Did God tell me that?

Typicla Red Herring.

Procreation has nothing to do with sexuality.

Originally Posted by rstones199

Typicla Red Herring.

even herring procreate with opposite sex

Procreation has nothing to do with sexuality.

the male/female combination is how man/women make babies.

Sexuality is just the descriptions of sexual practice/acts/pursuits by psychologist, not nature.

Human choice is about the only thing in existence that goes against nature.

heck it is human choice that enabled mankind to tell themselves they are not a part of 'the garden' and the stupidity of idiots began the concept that 'god' kicked them out or that mankind controls (owns) nature.

the facts are still on the table. Homosexual is about same sex copulation and marriage is originally based on lineage protection which naturally is of opposite sex copulation.

the morons, just dont like reality on a plate and it makes their faces RED, hearing/reading and comprehending it

Originally Posted by Bishadi

even herring procreate with opposite sex

the male/female combination is how man/women make babies.

Sexuality is just the descriptions of sexual practice/acts/pursuits by psychologist, not nature.

Human choice is about the only thing in existence that goes against nature.

heck it is human choice that enabled mankind to tell themselves they are not a part of 'the garden' and the stupidity of idiots began the concept that 'god' kicked them out or that mankind controls (owns) nature.

the facts are still on the table. Homosexual is about same sex copulation and marriage is originally based on lineage protection which naturally is of opposite sex copulation.

the morons, just dont like reality on a plate and it makes their faces RED, hearing/reading and comprehending it

1 - Homosexulity is not a choice.

2 - Since Evolution is natural and Evolution has 'given' humans the ability to choose, that does in fact make 'Human choice' natural.

3 - Proceation has nothing to do with sexuality and/or marriage. - it is a red herring. Marriage is a legal contract that has 1400 legal rights that come with it.

Any male, regaurdless of sexuality, can be a a father and any female, regaurdless of sexuality, can be a a mother.

Anything to deny the undesirables rights.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Anything to deny the undesirables rights.

All right, well, lets take a stab at that one.

Which part of your sex life is an unalienable right? Much less a right that requires government intervention to support?

Certainly, a marriage between a man and woman has no guarantee of winding up being perfect, far from it. But, both in terms of religion and science, these 'nuclear' relationship impart important advantages to the children who grow up in this environment. It makes sense to support this institution because it is a force of stability and success for our country.

Teh current question is about homosexual marriage. The homosexual community is, quite literally, the most sexualized community that I have ever encountered. This is one reason, as mentioned in the previous thread, that AIDS hit the community so hard. If this is what people choose, that is their right. The government should have little incentive to support this lifestyle however. Being homosexual does not change the downside of promiscuity and emotional instability the flow from the lifestyle. That being said, there are obviously very loving same sex couples within the community that are deeply committed to one another. The question is whether or not we should support such unions with federal recognition and financial benefits. I see two things.

a. The ideal: homosexual couples will commit to each other formally, and share the benefits of a love centered commitment and truely be able to care for their loved one as any other married couple does.

b. The bene: Some homosexuals will simply have a 'favorite' or a partnership centered on an elevated sense of affection. These will marry, but their relationship with be anything but monogamous. They will continue to see other men or women, even as their 'social' commitment remains to one another. They will also incure benefits from the government in an institution or relationship that would be hard pressed to avoid the down side of such promiscuity.

In a moral sense, it is enfranchised adultry, and can, will, and should, raise moral questions about support for such a relationship.

Again, there is a line between personal choice, and a steeper line between government sanction of choices on a societal level.

c. For arguements sake, we can delve deeper in sexual deviancy. I doubt anyone here would call for the government to support beastiality or pedophilia. In fact, we remain, quite righteously, horrified by this sexual conduct.

So where do we draw the line at what is sexually acceptable and what is not sexually acceptable? For instance, we is a man railing a horse deeply offensive and seen as clearly wrong, but a man railing another man .... natural and acceptable? Both will claim that they simply have sexual urges that they needed to give vent to.

In a larger sense, it should raise a discussion about the power of sex within our lives, and whether it controls us - or we control it.

More importantly, it should raise a question about how the government, in terms of policy and enforcement, should set its rules and limits on sexual conduct to help us control ourselves if you will.

On one end of the spectrum, anti-polygamy laws were used to begin the dismantling of abuse fundamentalists LDS villages - but it was hard offenses of abuse that lead to harsh punishments. The lessons here being the power of sex to prevert, and the power of the government to end the preversion.

Simply put, this one is not a open and shut case of right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Neutral

b. The bene: Some homosexuals will simply have a 'favorite' or a partnership centered on an elevated sense of affection. These will marry, but their relationship with be anything but monogamous. They will continue to see other men or women, even as their 'social' commitment remains to one another. They will also incure benefits from the government in an institution or relationship that would be hard pressed to avoid the down side of such promiscuity.

My sister in law is a lesbian. Her best friend in the entire world is a gay man. They got married the day after my wife and I did. You can't prevent people from abusing the system now. So why try when it means preventing actual committed gay couples from enjoying the benefits of the system that they rightfully deserve?

Originally Posted by Burzmali

My sister in law is a lesbian. Her best friend in the entire world is a gay man. They got married the day after my wife and I did. You can't prevent people from abusing the system now. So why try when it means preventing actual committed gay couples from enjoying the benefits of the system that they rightfully deserve?

Because that is not a true statement.

Having been involved in policy making in several countries, it is exactly BECAUSE people abuse the system that you have to reform it.

People taking advantage of the system are not good things, and they are not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that, when people discover a way to bilk the system, you change the system.

For instance, what your lesbian sister is doing could ably be called fraud. They are not in a committed relationship at all are they? That is not a marriage, and it adds little of the benefits of a marriage while taking resources from the government.

But, its two consenting adults, so we just HAVE to accept it do we?

Do we see why many religious communities, indeed even a few atheists, are cautious about such a change? If we rationalize our morality for the sake of some government bennies? Who is wrong there?

Originally Posted by Neutral

Because that is not a true statement.

Having been involved in policy making in several countries, it is exactly BECAUSE people abuse the system that you have to reform it.

People taking advantage of the system are not good things, and they are not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that, when people discover a way to bilk the system, you change the system.

For instance, what your lesbian sister is doing could ably be called fraud. They are not in a committed relationship at all are they? That is not a marriage, and it adds little of the benefits of a marriage while taking resources from the government.

But, its two consenting adults, so we just HAVE to accept it do we?

Do we see why many religious communities, indeed even a few atheists, are cautious about such a change? If we rationalize our morality for the sake of some government bennies? Who is wrong there?

In her case, my sister in law would happily be married to her partner if she could be. She married her gay best friend largely as a joke, but she has no reason to divorce him and end the "fraud." At least in her case, allowing gay marriage would prevent an abuse of the system.

Furthermore, marriage is a civil contract between the two partners involved. The only "fraud" being committed in this relationship is the one done to each other. Government benefits that are awarded to married couples make no stipulation about fidelity. They only state that the couple must be married. These two are, so no fraud is being perpetrated on the government.

Originally Posted by Neutral

Because that is not a true statement.

Having been involved in policy making in several countries, it is exactly BECAUSE people abuse the system that you have to reform it.

People taking advantage of the system are not good things, and they are not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that, when people discover a way to bilk the system, you change the system.

For instance, what your lesbian sister is doing could ably be called fraud. They are not in a committed relationship at all are they? That is not a marriage, and it adds little of the benefits of a marriage while taking resources from the government.

But, its two consenting adults, so we just HAVE to accept it do we?

Do we see why many religious communities, indeed even a few atheists, are cautious about such a change? If we rationalize our morality for the sake of some government bennies? Who is wrong there?

But Neutral... don't you see, that is what the entire argument is based on... the ability of those gay and lesbian folk to be able to receive benefits from the government.. it is not about rights, but rather about financial or other social benefits....
"

Archaic a kindly, charitable act; benefaction
gain or advantage: tax legislation for the benefit of the rich
a favorable or beneficial circumstance, condition, or result: several benefits to good nutrition
fringe benefit
payments made by an insurance company, public agency, welfare society, etc. as during sickness, retirement, unemployment, etc. or for death
any public performance, bazaar, dance, etc. the proceeds of which are to help a certain person, group, or cause"

They could truly care less about others (including that child which has been placed in their custody)... it is all about BENEFITS...