Engaging in

[Mary's Knight, La]

i'm not denying the role of faith at all. in thise case i'm just saying eternal truth is evidenced in the functionality. and especially in this case i don't see the possibility for a change in functionality which indicates its relation to eternal truth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well I suppose I could see that it is unnatural. (though really you could never prove it wrong, but as winchester said you can't prove anything wrong really) But I don't know if that means we shouldn't allow it. As for my analogy, if people want to eat dirt, I say make it legal for them to eat dirt.

[Mary's Knight, La]

to prove something wrong demands you believe in a right. barring faith, the closest to right and wrong you have is natural and unnatural.

as for eating dirt:
then why not murder of children outside the womb? the little numbskulls annoy me and I want to kill them so why not make it legal for me to do so.

okay that was a little cliche and you probably didn't buy it, but from my point of view the arguements are equally absurd. but we'll look if that which is unnatural should be legal.

we've already said homosexual intercourse is against the design so what does design/nature matter? well nature gives us a set of bounds for healthy opperation. it's natural to eat, when you do not do so you "naturally" die, same with breathing. now if you'll allow me a proof by induction and place the burden on you of proving that there exists something natural in humans which the neglecting of is not-unhealthy.
to clarify i'm contending that natural laws exist to preserve the health of humans thus un-natural us un-healthy and laws exist to prevent people from harming *themselves* and *others*.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 13 2004, 01:57 PM'] Well I suppose I could see that it is unnatural. (though really you could never prove it wrong, but as winchester said you can't prove anything wrong really) But I don't know if that means we shouldn't allow it. As for my analogy, if people want to eat dirt, I say make it legal for them to eat dirt. [/quote]
That is ridiculous....


"If people want to murder people I say we make it legal for them to do it"

[dairygirl4u2c]

My point is that if it's not hurting anybody, let them do it. I know I didn't make it clear, but you guys are definitely putting words into my mouth.

I'd even say that if it's hurting the person themself but not anyone else, then let them do it. Maybe to a point. And yes this point is arbitrary.




[quote]"If people want to murder people I say we make it legal for them to do it"[/quote]
[quote] and *others*.[/quote]

I don't see how eating dirt and not hurting somebody is analogous to killing or hurting others.

Edited November 17, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

suicide is illegal, do you disagree with that?

we're not even suggesting it being illegal, just saying that the state has no need to recognize it as a union.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Suicide may be different because the person is under stress. I don't think the punishment should be high if you try a d fail.

But anyway two things.

Why can't it be legal? Recognizing people's right to eat dirt is what I think America is made for.

Second, isn't it the stance of the Catholic Church that it should be illegal to do that stuff? LIke to anti sodomy laws? Of course you can't stop them, but isn't that the stance?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think we should make a few points then agree to disagree on them if any of you are willing. I think if we did that for once, that'd be very cool. Then maybe we'll start doing it again.

Make the points simple! Otherwise it will get too complicated.

[Oik]

Dairy,

My Points:

1) Homosexuality does hurt people. It spreads disease and is damages other parts of the body. Now, you can play that out, but I won't discuss the specifics unless you pm me.

2) Also, even if there was a gay gene, that is not a reason to foster and sanction it.
There is an alcoholism gene, that makes certain people more prone to alcoholism, does that mean getting drunk and becoming an alcoholic should be legal? No. The same principle applys to homosexuality, if a gay gene were to be discovered. Also, this argument falls though because human beings are already genetically programmed for the opposite sex,evident on a physical and chemical level.

3) There isn't a three, i don't think...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]2) Also, even if there was a gay gene, that is not a reason to foster and sanction it.[/quote]

I don't like that you're so quick to say that you wouldn't sanction it, because it could be natural. But I concede that it probably isn't. So as far as anything pertaining to that goes, I don't want to include that in my argument anymore.

But I do want to say that I don't think it hurts people. Marriage can spread disease too if I use the same critieria that you do. I think we better define what we're talking about though. You must be talking about fornication with homosexuals. I want to focus on homosexuals that are monogamous. So in this context I don't think it hurts them or anyone else. And if it hurt them, in this case, then more power to em. we should embrace allowing homosexual acts in our laws.

[Socrates]

Promiscuity is not the only reason homosexuality breeds disease. There are anatomical reasons why sodomy tends to spread disease more than natural sex (between man and woman). I don't want to get censured for graphically explaining this on this site, so I won't go into detail on this.

Secondly, contrary to gay-rights propaganda, very few homosexuals, at least of male homosexuals, are interested in "monagamy." IN reality, most active gay males are extremely promiscuous. Gay "marriage" is a farce promoted by gay activists to force acceptance of their "lifestyle." The vast majority of gay men have no interest in settling into a monogamous "marriage."

The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and raising of children. This is something homosexual "marriages" can never be ordered towards. Gay "marriage" is nothing more than a grotesque mockery of true marriage.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think you're making a stretch saying that it's the case that gays are not interested in marriage and that they are pretty much all promiscuous. But what are ya gonna do.

If they're hurting themselves either way in morrage or not, it's their own doings.

I still say we should make it legal as that is what America was made for. But apparently you're saying nuhuh and I"m saying yeahuh. If you think that there is no way that I could possibly say that I disagree with you without being insane than I would like to continute, otherwise can we agree to disagree?

[SirMyztiq]

It's all very simple:

Why should you care about another person's feelings?
Why should you label them?

And to top it off

Why should you try to stop it?

The marriage between two homosexuals doesn't even DEAL with marriage through the church. It's mostly Government related. They are fighting for their rights to be called a couple and you have no right above anybody to set a boundary between right or wrong when it comes to love. It's not a constitutional right. It's not a natural right. And it's sure not a God given one.

Edited November 19, 2004 by SirMyztiq

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm not sure you understand the issues. The Catholic Church says that government should not allow for anything that is against its teachings. That's how it's gov related to them and that's my dispute.

Also I don't understand how you switched from that to love. No one can say they can't love each other, not even the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just does not want to recognize that love in marriage. I think what you mean is that the love can't be disputed and that the marraige shouldn't be? Maybe you should clarify how you're tying those things together.



Anyway, I would like someone to respond to this.
[quote]I think you're making a stretch saying that it's the case that gays are not interested in marriage and that they are pretty much all promiscuous. But what are ya gonna do.

If they're hurting themselves either way in morrage or not, it's their own doings.

I still say we should make it legal as that is what America was made for. But apparently you're saying nuhuh and I"m saying yeahuh. If you think that there is no way that I could possibly say that I disagree with you without being insane than I would like to continute, otherwise can we agree to disagree? [/quote]

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 18 2004, 11:47 PM'] I'm not sure you understand the issues. The Catholic Church says that government should not allow for anything that is against its teachings. That's how it's gov related to them and that's my dispute.

Also I don't understand how you switched from that to love. No one can say they can't love each other, not even the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just does not want to recognize that love in marriage. I think what you mean is that the love can't be disputed and that the marraige shouldn't be? Maybe you should clarify how you're tying those things together.



Anyway, I would like someone to respond to this.
[/quote]
When you question the validity of marriage your are essentially questioning their capacity of loving each other. People view it as "unnatural" and "sinful"...Not only the relationship but the whole idea of them loving each other is attacked.

The Catholic Church can't do anything about our government because the gov...WAIT!

They can now that they got their minions in control. Nevertheless it would be the most stupid and anti-American thing to put a block that doesn't allow gay couples to actually have a united relationship UNDER LAW. They could always go to a protestant religion and get married. Like I've said before homosexualism has ALWAYS been here. Now the conservatives feel threatened and the only way to stop it is to stop it legally. But doing so wouldn't be to good for this country and it sure wouldn't do to good for the institution of FREEDOM of this country.