Homosexual Living Together

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1110366' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:09 PM']
And I love my mother. I love my sister. Doesn't mean I should marry any of them.

And the animal thing is a non-sequitor. Dozens of animal species practice cannibalism. Heck, various bug species even eat thier own mates! Should this start a movement to legalize wives murdering and eating their husbands?
And animal "homosexuality" does not produce offspring, nor is associated with "family." It's usually just a communication of a top dog putting the underdog in his place.
[/quote]

The animal thing is a non-sequitur in saying that humans practicing homosexuality is morally right. It is not a non-sequitur in terms of what is "natural." I was addressing the statement that homosexuality is unnatural, and I think in that instance a reference to the natural world holds true.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110357' date='Nov 3 2006, 09:51 PM']
What harm does it do for homosexuals to have a secular marriage recognized by the government?
[/quote]
1. It's not pro-creative. The arrangement is not open to life at all. The state has strong interest in growing its community for a number of reasons.

2. It's an unhealthy lifestyle. Condoning homosexual marriage condones individuals entering into relationships harmful to each other.

3. It opens up the government to having accept every permutation of arrangement between individuals including but not limited to polygamy.

4. As it stands, forbidding it is non-discriminatory. No two people of the same gender, heterosexual or homosexual, can enter into marriage. Allow homosexual marriage opens the door wider to abuse of marriage benefits by two male or female heterosexuals marrying for the sake of the benefits.

5. Heterosexual parents are healthier environments in which to raise children. Male and female parents are the optimal arrangement. Scientifically proven.

6. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the betterment of societies for thousands of years.

[mariahLVzJP2]

if homosexual "marriage" is legalized then wouldnt allowing polygamy and incest not really matter either?



edit: like #3 in Kamiller's post

Edited November 4, 2006 by mariahLVzJP2

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110370' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:13 PM']
1. It's not pro-creative. The arrangement is not open to life at all. The state has strong interest in growing its community for a number of reasons.

2. It's an unhealthy lifestyle. Condoning homosexual marriage condones individuals entering into relationships harmful to each other.

3. It opens up the government to having accept every permutation of arrangement between individuals including but not limited to polygamy.

4. As it stands, forbidding it is non-discriminatory. No two people of the same gender, heterosexual or homosexual, can enter into marriage. Allow homosexual marriage opens the door wider to abuse of marriage benefits by two male or female heterosexuals marrying for the sake of the benefits.

5. Heterosexual parents are healthier environments in which to raise children. Male and female parents are the optimal arrangement. Scientifically proven.

6. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the betterment of societies for thousands of years.
[/quote]

1: The government doesn't ban sterile marriages.

2: Homosexuality is not illegal, and the supreme courts of various states have ruled that government doesn't have the right to monitor what goes on in the bedroom. Therefore, the judgment that it is an "unhealthy lifestyle" is not one for the government to make.

3: Perhaps. I'm not going to say it wouldn't for certain.

4: I think it is discriminatory. The fact that straight people can't have a gay marriage is kind of ludicrous. If I were to make a law saying that inter-racial marriage is illegal, could I then claim that it's not discriminatory because it doesn't prevent either race from getting married? No.

5: There is no evidence of this, and if you have some, I'd love to see it.

6: The most dominant marriage practice for thousands of years across world cultures had been polygamy - one man with multiple wives and concubines. So you could say the exact same thing about polygamy, a practice the US outlaws.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110369' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:12 PM']
The animal thing is a non-sequitur in saying that humans practicing homosexuality is morally right. It is not a non-sequitur in terms of what is "natural." I was addressing the statement that homosexuality is unnatural, and I think in that instance a reference to the natural world holds true.
[/quote]
It is quite a leap from arguing that something occurs in nature (especially outside the human species) to arguing that something should be given special sanction by law. Man has reason, and thus morality and law.

And using the "nature" argument, in most mammals, including the apes (considered closest to man), so-called "homosexual" activity is never a substitute for heterosexual intercourse, and is entirely unrelated to "family" and raising of young. Thus it has not even the analogous relation to marriage - which is a completely human institution anyway.
And if you want to use animal behavior as a basis for human law, you'll run into all kinds of trouble very fast!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1110381' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:24 PM']
It is quite a leap from arguing that something occurs in nature (especially outside the human species) to arguing that something should be given special sanction by law. Man has reason, and thus morality and law.

And using the "nature" argument, in most mammals, including the apes (considered closest to man), so-called "homosexual" activity is never a substitute for heterosexual intercourse, and is entirely unrelated to "family" and raising of young. Thus it has not even the analogous relation to marriage - which is a completely human institution anyway.
And if you want to use animal behavior as a basis for human law, you'll run into all kinds of trouble very fast!
[/quote]

I didn't say any of that. I just said homosexuality was natural and naturally occuring.

[Kosh]

so's one ape killing another for territory but that doesn't mean we should do it. Human morality is FAR different from animals. Actually, animals don't have morality. We do. And homosexuality is agianst it.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110375' date='Nov 3 2006, 10:17 PM']
1: The government doesn't ban sterile marriages.

2: Homosexuality is not illegal, and the supreme courts of various states have ruled that government doesn't have the right to monitor what goes on in the bedroom. Therefore, the judgment that it is an "unhealthy lifestyle" is not one for the government to make.

3: Perhaps. I'm not going to say it wouldn't for certain.

4: I think it is discriminatory. The fact that straight people can't have a gay marriage is kind of ludicrous. If I were to make a law saying that inter-racial marriage is illegal, could I then claim that it's not discriminatory because it doesn't prevent either race from getting married? No.

5: There is no evidence of this, and if you have some, I'd love to see it.

6: The most dominant marriage practice for thousands of years across world cultures had been polygamy - one man with multiple wives and concubines. So you could say the exact same thing about polygamy, a practice the US outlaws.
[/quote]
1. Sterile marriages can be reversed. Even sterile parents can adopt. As proven, man and woman are the optimal homes for children.

2. The legality of homosexuality has nothing to do with whether it's healthy or not. The state has an interest in not encouraging unhealthy lifestyles. There are personal and fiscal costs to society in supporting an unhealthy lifestyle.

3. It opens Pandora's box. Why not marriage between father and daughter? Marriage between father, daughter, son, and uncle? Marriage between man and dog? Marriage is well defined for a specific fruitful purpose.

4. If there were substantial reasons other than race for prohibiting interracial marriages, then yes, the state would be justified. As all other reasons given, there is more than simply "they're gay" for forbidding homosexual marriages.

5. [url="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01"]Here are many references to studies and books[/url].

6. You would have to prove polygamy contributed to the betterment of those societies. In many cases, polygamy was outlawed for the good of its people. Maybe we can study some cases where governments outlawed monogamy and why.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110390' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:53 PM']
1. Sterile marriages can be reversed. Even sterile parents can adopt. As proven, man and woman are the optimal homes for children.

2. The legality of homosexuality has nothing to do with whether it's healthy or not. The state has an interest in not encouraging unhealthy lifestyles. There are personal and fiscal costs to society in supporting an unhealthy lifestyle.

3. It opens Pandora's box. Why not marriage between father and daughter? Marriage between father, daughter, son, and uncle? Marriage between man and dog? Marriage is well defined for a specific fruitful purpose.

4. If there were substantial reasons other than race for prohibiting interracial marriages, then yes, the state would be justified. As all other reasons given, there is more than simply "they're gay" for forbidding homosexual marriages.

5. [url="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01"]Here are many references to studies and books[/url].

6. You would have to prove polygamy contributed to the betterment of those societies. In many cases, polygamy was outlawed for the good of its people. Maybe we can study some cases where governments outlawed monogamy and why.
[/quote]

1. Gays can adopt.

2. The state doesn't ban all unhealthy lifestyles - alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

3. Marriage between an adult and a minor is and would remain illegal regardless of homosexuality. If you mean an adult daughter and a father, then that is already legal - look at Woody Allen. You could still restrict marriage to one partner, so I'll leave off your incestuous polyamory example. And quit with the freaking beastiality - animals are not sentient and they cannot consent. And, they can't have legal rights like humans can because they aren't human. It's a ridiculous straw man that I hear time and again.

4. Heterosexual marriages can be unhealthy. In fact, any kind of sexual relationship involves an element of risk. That doesn't mean it's a substantive reason to bar the practice. The reason behind no gay marriages is that Christians think it's immoral. Period.

5. I don't trust the family research council as a source. Sorry, but I don't.

6. History isn't a natural progression of betterment. It would be fallacious to say that simply because monogamy exists today in most of the advanced cultures of the world that it is the cause, or that it is superior.

Edited November 4, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]This is a funny topic.

I know someone who believes that homosexuality is normal.
To have two men and two women love eachother is completely natural.
But he believes that sex between two homosexuals is unatural.

He says its ok if they live together and just BE A COUPLE whatever just as long as they dont have sex with eachother.




What a crazy boy!
[/size]

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1110438' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:36 AM']
[size=1]This is a funny topic.

I know someone who believes that homosexuality is normal.
To have two men and two women love eachother is completely natural.
But he believes that sex between two homosexuals is unatural.

He says its ok if they live together and just BE A COUPLE whatever just as long as they dont have sex with eachother.
What a crazy boy!
[/size]
[/quote]

There's nothing funny about the situation homosexuals have been placed in.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]Like I said, HE is a funny boy.
[/size]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110411' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:17 PM']
1. Gays can adopt.

2. The state doesn't ban all unhealthy lifestyles - alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

3. Marriage between an adult and a minor is and would remain illegal regardless of homosexuality. If you mean an adult daughter and a father, then that is already legal - look at Woody Allen. You could still restrict marriage to one partner, so I'll leave off your incestuous polyamory example. And quit with the freaking beastiality - animals are not sentient and they cannot consent. And, they can't have legal rights like humans can because they aren't human. It's a ridiculous straw man that I hear time and again.

4. Heterosexual marriages can be unhealthy. In fact, any kind of sexual relationship involves an element of risk. That doesn't mean it's a substantive reason to bar the practice. The reason behind no gay marriages is that Christians think it's immoral. Period.

5. I don't trust the family research council as a source. Sorry, but I don't.

6. History isn't a natural progression of betterment. It would be fallacious to say that simply because monogamy exists today in most of the advanced cultures of the world that it is the cause, or that it is superior.
[/quote]
1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals?

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. [url="http://www.google.com"]Start here[/url].

6. History has its setbacks, but its overall progression is for the better. I provided modern societies as examples of monogamy working.

[KizlarAgha]

I take it you're not a historian, saying that the overall progress of history is for the better. It's impossible to make a quality judgment on something like that.

The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!)

Evolution. But it wasn't an intelligent design, it just worked the best for reproduction.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110452' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:47 PM']
I take it you're not a historian, saying that the overall progress of history is for the better. It's impossible to make a quality judgment on something like that.

The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!)

Evolution. But it wasn't an intelligent design, it just worked the best for reproduction.
[/quote]


I think you just answered your own questions.