Engaging in

[God Conquers]

[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. [/quote]

This is ridiculous. You are asserting that because I can not marry my sister I do not love her. In no way does the inability to marry demonstrate an incapacity to love. They cetainly do have the capacity to love, but a homosexual couple does NOT have the capacity to marry or express marital love.

[Oik]

Dairy, I don't have any further for you.

Marriage (or even "civil unions") is a matter of Faith. When you take it out of context you lose the Truth. There is not much futher to talk about.

No one thought that DDT was harmfull until is started killing the farmers, will acceptance of homosexuality be the next social scourge of our American history?

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 18 2004, 10:48 PM'] 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]
If "gay marriages" are "what America was made for," then why have they not been recognized in this country for over 200 years???

Legal marriage bestows certain legal and tax benefits on married couples, and is a legal recognition of what is a foundation of all civilized society, the family (man, woman and their children). This is not what a "gay union" is, and sodomy deserves no such legal recognition, which mocks and cheapens the dignity of real marriage.

If legal marriage is to be based on the hedonistic principle of people just doing whatever they like ("If it feels good, do it!"), then why stop with "gay marriage"?
Why shouldn't someone be able to legally "marry" his or her son or daughter?
A barnyard animal?
A blow-up doll?

Sorry if I've offended anybody, but this point gets to the root of the issue, I think.
Hey, legal rights for everybody! Who am I to impose my morality?

[Socrates]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 18 2004, 11:54 PM']
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. [/quote]
This post betrays an incredible, profound and apalling ignorance of American history!

Until the late twentieth-century, most states had anti-sodomy laws! (Some still do, though these are now for the most part not enforced and being struck down by the "gay rights" crowd). That's right, homosexual activity was a prosecutable crime in this country!

And Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of our country, and not a particulary religious man, recommended as Governor of Virginia that sodomites be punished by castration! (a common punishment for sex offenders at the time)
(So much for gay rights being what our country was founded on!)

You might think this unfair, whatever, but the fact is that homosexual "marriages" or even "civil unions" were never legally practiced in this country until a few years ago!

No church, Catholic or protestant, provided homosexual "marriages"! And until recent decades, anyone would have been appalled at the very suggestion! (Ask your grandmother!)

I challenge you to find any evidence for any kind of "gay marriage" in America before the 1980s or '90s.

SirMyztaken, do some basic historical research before you post anymore such nonsense! (And read a real history book - not that PC BS they probably give you in the public high schools)

Edited November 19, 2004 by Socrates

[qfnol31]

You should read Aquinas on this, but I must warn you, he's very difficult. Aquinas talks about the objects of the external and internal acts of the will, meaning the goodness of an act depends on the act being good, the interior idea of the act being good, the intent being good, and the end being good. That means you can look at an act without any particular situation and tell whether it would be evil or not.

The fact that a rape could stop a raper is just an example of an accidental consequence to this, that is it doesn't change the idea that it's evil. The only thing that can do is greaten or lessen the culpability, responsiblity for that act.

[Mary's Knight, La]

dairy

prove that something that is unnatural is not unhealthy. as other unnatural acts are unhealthy we may conclude unnatural sex is also unhealthy until proven otherwise. Eating dirt doesn't provide necessary nutrition and is therefore harmful.

SirMyztiq,

you're right on one part, the idea that two men or two women can love eachother the way a husband and a wife can, is under attack from Catholics and other Christians. For good reason, it's Wrong!

and as far as homosexualism always being around, murder has been around since Cain but i don't see you arguing that it's natural.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Eating dirt doesn't provide necessary nutrition and is therefore harmful.[/quote]

I think I'll just use this statement to show you what I mean. Just because you eat dirt does not mean you're not going to eat anything else. Does the actual eating of the dirt hurt you? I don't think so.

[Socrates]

Dairy, I'd like to see you try to respond to my most recent posts.
(and the issue is gay marriage, not eating dirt.)

[dairygirl4u2c]

Gay marriage is what America was made for. America was made for recognizing other people's morals. I might be willing to say that marriage should be just between a man and a woman if that's how it's defined. But as American's I don't think we should limit the definition in order to recognize other's morals. I would be willing to define marriage as between a man a woman, but if it becomes a problem, which it has, then I don't think we should.This is just a word game everyone's playing as far as mariage goes. I say just let the baby have their bottle; again that's what America is for.

What the issue is is that I think gays should have rights as far as being recognized somehow for their choice and you do not.



I know I can't find history that says otherwise. Perhaps it's not what America was for. I doubt the founders really thought about all this stuff. So, what I can find, based on what they said, I think I can make the argument.

And finally, if it's not what it was for, then it should have been.

Edited November 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 20 2004, 05:15 PM'] Gay marriage is what America was made for. America was made for recognizing other people's morals. I might be willing to say that marriage should be just between a man and a woman if that's how it's defined. But as American's I don't think we should limit the definition in order to recognize other's morals. I would be willing to define marriage as between a man a woman, but if it becomes a problem, which it has, then I don't think we should.This is just a word game everyone's playing as far as mariage goes. I say just let the baby have their bottle; again that's what America is for.

What the issue is is that I think gays should have rights as far as being recognized somehow for their choice and you do not.



I know I can't find history that says otherwise. Perhaps it's not what America was for. I doubt the founders really thought about all this stuff. So, what I can find, based on what they said, I think I can make the argument.

And finally, if it's not what it was for, then it should have been. [/quote]
Okay, you've just given a set of opinions and nothing concrete to back them up.
You've provided absolutely zero evidence that gay marriage was a principle America was founded on. You've merely said. basically, gay marriage is what America is for because I think that's what it's for.

You've even admitted you couldn't find anything about the American founding to support your case.

And if America was "made for" gay rights, and restrictions on gay marriage are so "un-American," as you and SirMystic assert, why did the American government have no problem with state anti-sodomy laws for over 200 years?

You've given me nothing, only opinions (which are like you-know-whats). Dairy, you've got to do better than this if you want to debate.

[Guest Aluigi]

what the constitution was written for:[list]
[*]form a more perfect
[*]establish justice
[*]insure domestic tranquility
[*]provide for the common defense
[*]promote the general Welfare
[*]secure the Blessings of Liberty
[/list]

the government is called to PROMOTE the general welfare. it has been established, and you have not disputed it, that homosexual unions are not good for the public welfare (your argument was simply that they should be allowed to do it regardless). therefore the government should not promote them.

you claim it falls under the blessings of liberty that the government recognize and/or promote homosexual unions legally?

the fact that it is inherently unhealthy and commitment is hard to find among the vast majority of the homosexual community leads me to believe that at the very least for the government to recognize would not promote the general Welfare and at the most would be harmful to it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]form a more perfect
establish justice
insure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty[/quote]

You are reading those are you want to read them. Justice could be what I think. Welfare could be. Liberty. etc etc.


The constitution is controversial. I don't think any of us could say for sure what it means. I think this is a fact, though I may be wrong.. the constitution was made so that laws could evolve over time. The framework stays the same. Some say that's the case and some do not.




Here's a fact. Jefferson also made his own bible. He cut pieces from the bible to make his own.This is what separation of church and state are for to protect that.

Many of the founding fathers had slaves. They also didn't think women should be able to vote.

People probably let those things go because of a culture thing. That doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. I don't want to lecture as I'm sure you know, just remind, what is right is not always what is done.

This could be the case for gay rights as well.

Edited November 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

you completely missed my point. you're claiming somehow that those points are not now the things our government is supposed to do now? of course they are.

this has nothing to do with the views of the founding fathers, but the role the government was and is intended for.

question: does the government recognizing homosexual unions promote the public welfare?
does it secure the Blessings of Liberty?
does it establish justice?

I want a yes/no answer for each of those. Edited November 20, 2004 by Aluigi

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 20 2004, 06:16 PM']
You are reading those are you want to read them. Justice could be what I think. Welfare could be. Liberty. etc etc.


The constitution is controversial. I don't think any of us could say for sure what it means. I think this is a fact, though I may be wrong.. the constitution was made so that laws could evolve over time. The framework stays the same. Some say that's the case and some do not.




Here's a fact. Jefferson also made his own bible. He cut pieces from the bible to make his own.This is what separation of church and state are for to protect that.

Many of the founding fathers had slaves. They also didn't think women should be able to vote.

People probably let those things go because of a culture thing. That doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. I don't want to lecture as I'm sure you know, just remind, what is right is not always what is done.

This could be the case for gay rights as well. [/quote]
Still absolutely zero argument for your position, Dairy!

We've earlier shown how "gay rights" are contrary to God and nature, and you respond that they are what "America is made for."

Now you cannot provide any evidence that America was "made for" gay rights. Youv'e admitted that you don't know (and don't seem to care) about what the Constitution says.

What Jefferson's bible has to do with gay marriage is beyond me.

You have yet to provide any evidence for why gay marriage should be recognized other than that you think it should be.

You've simply got no argument.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I could argue that it does. And if I didn't argue that then I'd argue the other thiigns that you mentioned justice etc etc.

Marriage the way it is now isn't promoting welfare either. People will still get married and have kids. I don't even think marraige should be in our government, but if it is I don't mind, but think that it should be equal. justice yo.