a thought on marriage

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 22 2004, 01:03 PM'] Burns, I would like to know your thoughts on what I view (as I illustrated on the first page) to be the central issue of the debate about same-sex marriage and civil unions. I'm sure you must have missed it, seeing as I posted early on the first page, and though others have alluded to the point, they have not been explicit in dealing with it, and, as such, you could not have been expected to respond.


It seems to me that the issue of same-sex marriages and civil unions rests on a two-pillared foundation.

The first pillar is universal to all americans, while the second applies only to some, and this is where the argument begins.

The first premise is that we, as Americans living in a democratic republic, constitute the ruling body and play a direct role in the governance of our nation. Each and every one of us has not only the right, but the obligation, to participate in government and to affect legislation, whether indirectly through casting a vote, or through more direct means. Now, perhaps the most critical in all of this, our duty is to cast votes and affect legislation in a manner that is for the greater good of the nation, as determined by our best judgement. This is the heart of civic responsibility.

Now, the second "pillar" of the conflict is the issue of faith. Not all people share the same faith and not all people abide by the same moral code. Christians have a different set of moral values than Hindus, who have different moral values than Muslims, who have different moral values than atheists. This is blatantly clear to anyone who simply looks around America. [/quote]
In one way you are correct here. Inasmuch as same-sex marriage is an issue that inherently involves people and that people are generally concerned with religion (whatever their beliefs) you are correct. However, as our government is representative in nature, we can only have an indirect role in government. Additionally, government is itself governed by a body of law known as the Constitution. Constitutional priniciples are the highest law of the land -- which is why we have a body dedicated solely to interpreting them. Whether it is our duty as citizens to uphold the greater good or to insure personal freedom is a matter of contention that won't be resolved any time soon.

[quote]The conflict comes when people attempts to seperate faith from civics. I am not at all advocating a State-run religion, but rather, the previous sentence is meant to address the dilemma of trying to remove all traces of faith from anything hinting of civics. All people, of any faith, made their judgements and decisions based, in some way, shape, or form, upon that faith, and it is impossible to do otherwise. Human beings are a synthesis of all the things that make them up: we are integrated creatures, and this needs to be remembered when we consider the issue of civic responsibility.

Allow me to move for a moment from vague ideas into reality for just a moment:

My responsibility and duty as an american citizen calls me to vote, and it is precisely for that reason that my faith cannot be "left at the door" so to speak. [i]I[/i] have a duty to vote, and that means that I have a duty to vote as [i]me[/i]. Moreover, that [i]"me"[/i] is an integral being, and if I were to dis-integrate that being, it would no longer be "me" voting.

Asking a person whose faith makes up a deep part of them to not let their faith affect their vote is like asking someone whose socio-economic status has grave impact on their life to not let that socio-economic status affect their vote. Just as being poor or rich or being from the country or from the city must affect how one casts his or her vote, the faith that one adheres to also must affect how one casts his vote.

That having been established, we must return to the universal pillar of civic duty. We all help to make up, in some small part, the governing body of the American government. As such, we all have a duty to participate in that governance, and, moreover, we have a duty to govern (or affect government) in the manner we see most fit.

Thus, if a person is a person of faith, then that faith will, and must, play a role in how one comes to the conclusion of what is "most fit."

If the Christian beliefs lead a citizen of the United States to the conclusion that it is most fit for America to not legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions, then that is how they should, and must, vote.




Any response you have to the above thoughts would be greatly appreciated.  [/quote]

Let me digress for just a moment. Here we should separate faith and religion and recognize each for what it is. Faith is the belief in that which has no proof. Religion is a system of belief that is (usually) based on faith. It's a subtle distinction, but one that should be noted. Faith can apply to many things, including the inherent goodness or badness of humans or the ability of humans to be rehabilitated. So, to say that faith must be removed from law is a different statement than to say that religion should be removed. While removing religion from the law is a goal, it is obvious that doing so will be a long and arduous task.

Obviously, each person must vote as his/her personal values dictates. However, it is the duty of our government to ensure that our guiding body of law is upheld. Part of this duty includes giving no preference to religion as we can see from the First Amendment. Thus, both of us can be correct in our assessment of government and the citizens' duty thereto and we will still come to a point at which same-sex marriages are made legal.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 22 2004, 01:55 PM'] I didn't feel like reading all the posts, just TCW's opener. Protection of marriage can be argued from a purely secular perspective. As far as it being Sacramental, that's only God letting us know how He participates on a Spritual/Divine nature.

It is easily observed in nature that many species mate for life. Homospapiens are a species that derive many benefits from mating for life. [/quote]
However, it should be noted that rarely do Homo Sapiens mate for life.

[quote]These benefits are physical, emotional, etc. and these benefits extend through generations.  Some cultural influences may have changed aspects of marriages (such as mutltiple wifes, brothers marring their brothers widows, etc.). [/quote]

At least you admit that marriage has changed over time.

[quote]The arguement to allow gay marriage is based on it being a cultural or societal need.  The argument against it is  that, like divorce, it undermines the permancy of a marriage.[/quote]

This would be the first time that I have heard that argument. How, exactly, would same-sex marriage undermine the permanence of marriage? I understand the argument against divorce, but there is no clear similarity between divorce and same-sex marriage.


[quote]--snip--

Same sex marriages undermines a fundamental "truth" about the human species that is critical and neccesary for our survival as a viable species.  Just because we are intelligent and powerful enough to go against "Mother Nature", doesn't mean we should.  Just as we should be careful not to eliminate the rainforest or the Everglades because of the future consequences, we should be careful with the nature of marriage.  Just because we can out-run a glacier, doesn't mean we should build a city at it's base for the convenience of cheap ice.[/quote]

This reads as null meaning. Assuming that you mean that homosexuality is "against 'Mother Nature'" we have a problem. Homoseuxality is pervasive throughout nature and is not against nature. Assuming that you mean that lifetime monogamy is natural we have a different problem. Humans rarely mate for life so this is against nature. I'm sorry if you disagree, but in a society with expansive freedom it is easy to see the natural behavior of humans and it isn't what you are trying to make it.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Burnsspivey, just a few comments on your reply, I have quoted each section of your response, as I do not wish to appear as if I am taking anything out of context:

[quote]In one way you are correct here. Inasmuch as same-sex marriage is an issue that inherently involves people and that people are generally concerned with religion (whatever their beliefs) you are correct. However, as our government is representative in nature, we can only have an indirect role in government. Additionally, government is itself governed by a body of law known as the Constitution. Constitutional priniciples are the highest law of the land -- which is why we have a body dedicated solely to interpreting them. Whether it is our duty as citizens to uphold the greater good or to insure personal freedom is a matter of contention that won't be resolved any time soon.[/quote]

With regards to the above response, I would just like to address a few very minor points.

First, you have noted, as I did, that because we are not in a pure democracy, we play an indirect role in government. I agree, however, this in no way contradicts the issue that we have a civic duty and responsibility to vote as we see most fit. Also, from a purely philosophical standpoint, I don't think you would argue that even an indirect role makes one either formally or materially connected with the actions and decisions of the government.

With regards to the Constitution, I have but two things that I would like to point out. I agree entirely that the Constitution is the highest law of the land in America, however, I would warn and caution anyone from interpreting that as having a metaphysical reality to it. The fact that the Constitution is [i]not[/i] an authoritative document (metaphysically speaking) is clearly evidenced by the fact that it can be changed by the people (or, if you will, by the government for the people). We are most certainly beholden to the Constitution itself, but we also have the power to change it. In addition, I would like to make the observation that not even heterosexual couples have a "right" to marry before the state written into the constitution, and so, applying the Constitution itself to the specific issue at hand is not particularly beneficial.

[quote]Let me digress for just a moment. Here we should separate faith and religion and recognize each for what it is. Faith is the belief in that which has no proof. Religion is a system of belief that is (usually) based on faith. It's a subtle distinction, but one that should be noted. Faith can apply to many things, including the inherent goodness or badness of humans or the ability of humans to be rehabilitated. So, to say that faith must be removed from law is a different statement than to say that religion should be removed. While removing religion from the law is a goal, it is obvious that doing so will be a long and arduous task. [/quote]

I dont think this is that much of a digression, dont be so hard on yourself I agree that articles of faith and the organization of religion are different, however, this doesn't really address my point about people voting as they see most fit, and that such a decision is greatly influenced by personal convictions, which include, but are not limited to, faith.

[quote]Obviously, each person must vote as his/her personal values dictates. However, it is the duty of our government to ensure that our guiding body of law is upheld. Part of this duty includes giving no preference to religion as we can see from the First Amendment. Thus, both of us can be correct in our assessment of government and the citizens' duty thereto and we will still come to a point at which same-sex marriages are made legal.[/quote]

I follow you until the third sentence, at which point I think you accidentally switched from discussing my point about personal faith being instrumental in casting a vote into a discussion of the seperation of formally recognized religion and the state. Furthermore, I really do not see how you come to the conclusion of the final sentence.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:57 PM'] With regards to the Constitution, I have but two things that I would like to point out. I agree entirely that the Constitution is the highest law of the land in America, however, I would warn and caution anyone from interpreting that as having a metaphysical reality to it. The fact that the Constitution is [i]not[/i] an authoritative document (metaphysically speaking) is clearly evidenced by the fact that it can be changed by the people (or, if you will, by the government for the people). We are most certainly beholden to the Constitution itself, but we also have the power to change it. In addition, I would like to make the observation that not even heterosexual couples have a "right" to marry before the state written into the constitution, and so, applying the Constitution itself to the specific issue at hand is not particularly beneficial.
[/quote]
You are correct in your assessment that the Constitution has no wording that indicates its position on marriage. Thus my earlier argument that it should be removed from the legal sphere altogether. However where it comes into play in this issue are two points: the 14th Amendment and the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article IV.

The 14th Amendment grants equal rights to the people in this country.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause causes one state to recognize another's lisences etc. Thus, any marriage performed in Massachusets must be recognized in other states.

[quote]I follow you until the third sentence, at which point I think you accidentally switched from discussing my point about personal faith being instrumental in casting a vote into a discussion of the seperation of formally recognized religion and the state. Furthermore, I really do not see how you come to the conclusion of the final sentence.[/quote]

I gave you my full line of logic. The people can vote their beliefs all that they want, but if those beliefs are in direct conflict with the Constitution they will be refused. Feel free to vote your religion. Your religion can't make law under the 1st Amendment (hence its relevance to the discussion) and thus we will still have same-sex marriages.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:36 AM'] Please do me a favor and outline this "agenda". I have yet to find the prospectus and I'd like to know its details. [/quote]
Agenda
1. Indulge selfish desires for sex despite biological dead end, condemnation from Almighty, and initial revulsion by those sensitized to deviant sexual behavior.
2. Gratify self to the point of making sex focus of life.
3. Advance the cause of moral relativism.
4. Get straight people to fight battle by comparing struggle to Civil rights. Ignore fundamental differences in scope and purpose of movements.
5. Saturate the media with positive images of the flamboyant, glamorous homosexual in order to distract from the reality of drug use, sexual abuse, disease, unhappiness, and clinical disorder.
6. Forget that until the 1970s homosexuality was listed in the DSM for psychiatric disorders. Laud the landmark decision to take it off the list that was accomplished when 25% of the psychiatrists involved with DSM came together to vote, and of that 25% a plurality won out, imposing the will of a severe minority upon a hapless public that had no idea what a fabulous disorder it was.

[jasJis]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 22 2004, 02:49 PM']



[/quote]
[quote]However, it should be noted that rarely do Homo Sapiens mate for life.
[/quote]Simply, not even close to the true.

[quote]At least you admit that marriage has changed over time.[/quote]Unfortunately you didn't really read what I wrote. I said [u]some[/u] aspects, not fundamentals. You can paint stripes on a horse, but it doesn't make it a zebra.

[quote]This would be the first time that I have heard that argument.  How, exactly, would same-sex marriage undermine the permanence of marriage?  I understand the argument against divorce, but there is no clear similarity between divorce and same-sex marriage.[/quote]You're joking, right? What aspect of homosexuality has led to any biological need for permanance? What observation of homosexual activity has uncovered overwelming evidence that it is founded in permanent relationships?

[quote]This reads as null meaning.  Assuming that you mean that homosexuality is "against 'Mother Nature'" we have a problem.  Homoseuxality is pervasive throughout nature and is not against nature.  Assuming that you mean that lifetime monogamy is natural we have a different problem.  Humans rarely mate for life so this is against nature.  I'm sorry if you disagree, but in a society with expansive freedom it is easy to see the natural behavior of humans and it isn't what you are trying to make it.[/quote]No, you have a problem. Homosexuality is not 'pervasive' in 'Mother Nature'. It occurs as an exeption, not a norm. It contributes nothing to the survival of the species. Also, again you re-state your claim that humans rarely mate for life. That is false as you well know. True that recent behaviors by American society has shown that people re-marry, but it is to the detriment of the children, spouse, etc., which translates to an overall negative effect to the human society. Saying 'your sorry if you disagree' does not impart any validity to your supposition.
Murder has been a common occurence in human society. That does not make it a normal behavior or acceptable or a good 'natural' practice, even when different cultures and societies have been relatively more tolerant of it.
You cannot argue that homosexual activity is normal, contributative to permanent relationships, or offers any 'improvement' to the welfare of society as a whole. It's one side of the bridge to be loving and not react to homosexuals with hatred, and another side of the bridge to accept and promote it as a good or beneficial behavior.

[toledo_jesus]

instances of 'homosexuality' in nature are displays of dominance. Alpha male shows lesser male who is the number one breeder in this particular group. And since when is acting like a chimp something to be admired? We are not animals, therefore it is pointless to bring this up.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:51 AM'] Agenda
1. Indulge selfish desires for sex despite biological dead end, condemnation from Almighty, and initial revulsion by those sensitized to deviant sexual behavior.
2. Gratify self to the point of making sex focus of life.
3. Advance the cause of moral relativism.
4. Get straight people to fight battle by comparing struggle to Civil rights. Ignore fundamental differences in scope and purpose of movements.
5. Saturate the media with positive images of the flamboyant, glamorous homosexual in order to distract from the reality of drug use, sexual abuse, disease, unhappiness, and clinical disorder.
6. Forget that until the 1970s homosexuality was listed in the DSM for psychiatric disorders. Laud the landmark decision to take it off the list that was accomplished when 25% of the psychiatrists involved with DSM came together to vote, and of that 25% a plurality won out, imposing the will of a severe minority upon a hapless public that had no idea what a fabulous disorder it was. [/quote]
1. Any sex that does not result in pregnancy would be considered a "biological dead end" and thus is should only be done for the purposes of procreation. Ever. Others' revulsion has no bearing on any sexual practice -- there are those who find intercourse revolting. They need to either get over it or stop thinking about it. There are some who find oral sex disgusting, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop having it.
2. Done as often by heterosexual people, and not a consious decision, so should be removed.
3. Not actually a cause forwarded by all homosexual people -- in fact there are many homosexuals who are christian.
4. This should read: Gain straight allies who understand the nature of the struggle so that civil rights can be enforced.
5. Actually this one should read more like: Present normal homosexual people in media to counteract the traditionally bad portrayal given.
6. Read: Never forget that at one time it was considered a mental disorder and how far we have come toward a real understanding.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 23 2004, 07:20 AM'] Simply, not even close to the true.
[/quote]
The truth being what, then? That most people participate in lifetime monogamy? Try again.

[quote]Unfortunately you didn't really read what I wrote.  I said [u]some[/u] aspects, not fundamentals.  You can paint stripes on a horse, but it doesn't make it a zebra.[/quote]

I consider the difference between marrying one partner and marrying multiple (with the option of concubines) a fundamental difference.

[quote]You're joking, right?  What aspect of homosexuality has led to any biological need for permanance?  What observation of homosexual activity has uncovered overwelming evidence that it is founded in permanent relationships?[/quote]

What aspect of heterosexuality has lead to any biological need for permanence? Biological? No, I think not.

[quote]No, you have a problem.  Homosexuality is not 'pervasive' in 'Mother Nature'.  It occurs as an exeption, not a norm.  It contributes nothing to the survival of the species.  Also, again you re-state your claim that humans rarely mate for life.  That is false as you well know.  True that recent behaviors by American society has shown that people re-marry, but it is to the detriment of the children, spouse, etc., which translates to an overall negative effect to the human society.  Saying 'your sorry if you disagree' does not impart any validity to your supposition.[/quote]

Pervasive: found throughout. It occurs in many species over time, despite other mating practices. I do well know that few humans mate for life. You can't argue against this -- with at least a 50% divorce rate and an even greater rate of people who get married after having sex with someone else there is NO reason to believe that humans mate for life. Even without divorce we have in our past polygyny, concubinage, and people who marry others when their spouse dies. That is not mating for life. My sorry if you disagree.

[quote]Murder has been a common occurence in human society.  That does not make it a normal behavior or acceptable or a good 'natural' practice, even when different cultures and societies have been relatively more tolerant of it.
You cannot argue that homosexual activity is normal, contributative to permanent relationships, or offers any 'improvement' to the welfare of society as a whole.  It's one side of the bridge to be loving and not react to homosexuals with hatred, and another side of the bridge to accept and promote it as a good or beneficial behavior.[/quote]

Let's see:
Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Homosexual: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

Right, as I thought, no similarities. For some reason people around here like to try that comparison, but it doesn't hold.

Normal, as in conforming to society's norms. It seems that society has accepted that a percentage of its population is LGBT and thus has accept it as a norm. Thus, yes, I can argue that homosexuality is normal.

Of course I can argue that it's good and beneficial. It is good and beneficial in that it allows people to live in a way that creates happiness instead of anguish.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 09:30 AM'] instances of 'homosexuality' in nature are displays of dominance. Alpha male shows lesser male who is the number one breeder in this particular group. And since when is acting like a chimp something to be admired? We are not animals, therefore it is pointless to bring this up. [/quote]
In actuality this is not true. There are documented instances of animals that participate in homosexual sex solely for pleasure.

We [i]are[/i] animals whether we like to believe it or not.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 22 2004, 08:09 PM'] You are correct in your assessment that the Constitution has no wording that indicates its position on marriage. Thus my earlier argument that it should be removed from the legal sphere altogether. However where it comes into play in this issue are two points: the 14th Amendment and the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article IV.

The 14th Amendment grants equal rights to the people in this country.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause causes one state to recognize another's lisences etc. Thus, any marriage performed in Massachusets must be recognized in other states.



I gave you my full line of logic. The people can vote their beliefs all that they want, but if those beliefs are in direct conflict with the Constitution they will be refused. Feel free to vote your religion. Your religion can't make law under the 1st Amendment (hence its relevance to the discussion) and thus we will still have same-sex marriages. [/quote]
Just a few points in reply to this comment:

It seems to me that you have made, in the above post, the logical fallicy of [i]petitio principii[/i], or what is commonly referred to as "begging the question."

What I mean by this is that in the above, you have, implicitly and unintentionally of course, used the conclusion that you are trying to assert as a premise in your argument. Remember, you are trying to prove that gay-marriage or civil unions should and can exist. However, in the post-in-question you say,

[quote]The people can vote their beliefs all that they want, but if those beliefs are in direct conflict with the Constitution they will be refused.  Feel free to vote your religion.  Your religion can't make law under the 1st Amendment (hence its relevance to the discussion) and thus we will still have same-sex marriages[/quote]

The problem is that you are implicitly assuming that gay marriage and civil unions are indeed the logical end of the law. However, this is simply not the case. You're incomplete proof earlier only serves to highlight this fact. Allow me to demonstrate, here is your "proof":

[quote]However where it comes into play in this issue are two points: the 14th Amendment and the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article IV.

The 14th Amendment grants equal rights to the people in this country. 

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause causes one state to recognize another's lisences etc.  Thus, any marriage performed in Massachusets must be recognized in other states.[/quote]

Now, here is your argument in its formal, logical form:

1.) The 14th Amendment grants equal rights to the people in this country

2.) As a result of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause," states must acknowledge legally binding contracts of other states.

3.) Therefore, gay-marriages/legal contracts are necessarily legal.



However, in addition to being incohesive, the above argument also has some major holes in the form of legal precedent.

First, as you have acknowledged already in our discussion, there has been no legal precedent, or any reason to extrapolate, a "right" to marriage in the Constitution. This negates the worth of Point 1 as a worthwhile premise to have (as it regards this discussion).

Second, there [i]is[/i] legal precedent that does not make the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" an absolute, as Point 2 would attempt to assert. For example, in New York after the state made slaverly illegal, if a slaveowner took a slave through New York, the slave remained his "property," whereas if the slaveownder took permanent residence in New York, the legal contract binding the slave as property would dissolve, and the slave would be free, and had to be paid for his services.

Thus we see that the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" is not an absolute, and, as with all laws, has extreme cases in which it cannot be completely applied.

In this manner, Point 2 is inadequate, standing alone, to prove the truth of Point 3, your conclusion.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 19 2004, 02:11 PM'] Actually folks, Marriage is not an ecclesiatical thing or a religioius thing. It is primarily a natural law institution, which means that even the Church can't re-define it.

Christ raised it to the level of a sacrament for the baptized. The Church governs and protects the sacrament, but cannot change it. [/quote]
Yep

But I think that you should include that through Christ it is a sacramental.

Also, it is good for society to have good families. The Ideal family includes a mom and dad. While other forms work, we should work to the Ideal.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 23 2004, 10:31 AM'] Now, here is your argument in its formal, logical form:

1.) The 14th Amendment grants equal rights to the people in this country

2.) As a result of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause," states must acknowledge legally binding contracts of other states.

3.) Therefore, gay-marriages/legal contracts are necessarily legal.



However, in addition to being incohesive, the above argument also has some major holes in the form of legal precedent.

First, as you have acknowledged already in our discussion, there has been no legal precedent, or any reason to extrapolate, a "right" to marriage in the Constitution. This negates the worth of Point 1 as a worthwhile premise to have (as it regards this discussion).

Second, there [i]is[/i] legal precedent that does not make the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" an absolute, as Point 2 would attempt to assert. For example, in New York after the state made slaverly illegal, if a slaveowner took a slave through New York, the slave remained his "property," whereas if the slaveownder took permanent residence in New York, the legal contract binding the slave as property would dissolve, and the slave would be free, and had to be paid for his services.

Thus we see that the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" is not an absolute, and, as with all laws, has extreme cases in which it cannot be completely applied.

In this manner, Point 2 is inadequate, standing alone, to prove the truth of Point 3, your conclusion. [/quote]
It should be noted that I was making two separate arguments with two separate parts of the Constitution.

Argument 1:

Currently states grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who want to get married. Under the 14th Amendment, which states: "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", states are required to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. Thus, it does apply to this discussion.

Argument 2:

Currently Massachusets' law allows same-sex couples to marry. Your assessment that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not absolute, however, precendence shows that all states currently give full faith and credit to marriage licenses obtained in other states. This would hold true to marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 11:30 AM']
We [i]are[/i] animals whether we like to believe it or not. [/quote]
Human beings are not animals. I'm sorry, but an animal doesn't even understand the concept of 'animal' in relation to itself. The fact that you can claim to be an animal indicates your humanity and distinctiveness from a common beast.
And where do you draw your information concerning homosexuality in the wild? I would say that if indeed physical pleasure is a motivation for this behavior, it only further reinforces the notion that homosexuality among humans is simply about physical gratification and therefore wrong. Animals don't know any better, so why do we have these silly concepts of morality? Where do they come from? Or Who, I should say?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:55 PM'] Human beings are not animals. I'm sorry, but an animal doesn't even understand the concept of 'animal' in relation to itself. [/quote]
Animal: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

[quote]The fact that you can claim to be an animal indicates your humanity and distinctiveness from a common beast.[/quote]

Because a cat does not know that it is a cat? And you know this becuase?

[quote]I would say that if indeed physical pleasure is a motivation for this behavior, it only further reinforces the notion that homosexuality among humans is simply about physical gratification and therefore wrong.[/quote]

Then in the same breath you argue that because pleasure is the motivation for animals it can be the only motivation for humans. Tsk tsk. I would expect better.

[quote]Animals don't know any better, so why do we have these silly concepts of morality?  Where do they come from?  Or Who, I should say?[/quote]

Have you ever been around a pet that knows it has done something wrong?