Homosexual Living Together

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111392' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:38 PM']
I was putting that knowledge to use on these forums before you ever joined them and I still am. Take a look at the threads in the last week since I've been back concerning medieval history. You need to learn respect for others, tolerance, charity, and how to speak to people without a smug, self-superior attitude.
[/quote]
I apologize for any occasion where I appeared arrogant.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111481' date='Nov 4 2006, 10:30 PM']
I apologize for any occasion where I appeared arrogant.
[/quote]

I'm sorry for losing my patience with you.

[Kosh]

Yo guys, can I throw in my two cents on this topic? I think that the state promoting gay marriage in any way shape or form (whether or not gay sex is actually occuring) is very very contrary to the common good.

There are a couple of reasons for this. It would degrade the vaule of marriage in our culture. God knows we don't need anymore of THAT. I also think a homosexual union provides a far less strong family than that of a normal marriage. I do not want case to case examples, I'm speaking generally.

Also, as has already been brought up, legalizing gay marriage opens the door to MANY, MANY less desirable things.

~T3h Kosh

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111490' date='Nov 4 2006, 10:42 PM']
Yo guys, can I throw in my two cents on this topic? I think that the state promoting gay marriage in any way shape or form (whether or not gay sex is actually occuring) is very very contrary to the common good.

There are a couple of reasons for this. It would degrade the vaule of marriage in our culture. God knows we don't need anymore of THAT. I also think a homosexual union provides a far less strong family than that of a normal marriage. I do not want case to case examples, I'm speaking generally.

Also, as has already been brought up, legalizing gay marriage opens the door to MANY, MANY less desirable things.

~T3h Kosh
[/quote]

Hey Kosh!

I think that the slippery slope argument doesn't really work in this case unless gay marriage was decided by supreme court decisions. In that case, people wouldn't have a chance to vote on marriage, and you might end up with some weird laws. However, if people are willing to accept gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily mean they will accept polygamy and the like. Whether or not that's intellectually honest doesn't enter into it a lot of times.

Secondly, it doesn't degrade the value of marriage in our culture. Marriage is different things to different people and I don't think you could come to a consensus on the subject. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. To a lot of secular liberals I know, marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals. In the case of that latter definition, gay marriage wouldn't change anything. Besides which, these marriages would all be performed by the state. I don't think anyone is advocated that the Catholic Church be required to perform gay weddings. At least, I hope not.

Finally, I'm still not buying the whole weaker family thing. I think it varies from marriage to marriage - gay or straight. Both no doubt have their problems.

[Kosh]

For your last point, thats why I was making a general statement, which I still think is true. Man/Woman is the natural sexual and familial state of man and will thus in general fair better than homosexual union.

And let me just define marriage: A union of a man and woman for love with openness to children. That should satisfy most everyone and is NOT a religious definition. The Sacramental part of it did not enter into my argument.

And why doesn't the slippery slope argument work? If we accept homosexual union, what principles do we still adhere to? Why couldn't we just okay polygamy (if everyone consents) or even marrying your dog, if the dog is cool with it.

That being said, 'sup KizlarAgha! Haven't debated with you in a while. Whats happenin'?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111496' date='Nov 4 2006, 10:54 PM']
For your last point, thats why I was making a general statement, which I still think is true. Man/Woman is the natural sexual and familial state of man and will thus in general fair better than homosexual union.

And let me just define marriage: A union of a man and woman for love with openness to children. That should satisfy most everyone and is NOT a religious definition. The Sacramental part of it did not enter into my argument.

And why doesn't the slippery slope argument work? If we accept homosexual union, what principles do we still adhere to? Why couldn't we just okay polygamy (if everyone consents) or even marrying your dog, if the dog is cool with it.

That being said, 'sup KizlarAgha! Haven't debated with you in a while. Whats happenin'?
[/quote]

Oh, you know me, slingin' ad hominems around like they're goin' outta fashion!

I don't think the slipper slope argument works because my dog isn't intellectually capable of being cool with marrying me. My dog isn't a person. My dog isn't a citizen. My dog doesn't have the same rights as human beings. That argument, for all its use, is a really really bad one.

As to the whole polygamy thing, I think if you're intellectually honest you would have to agree that polygamy is fine if gay marriage is fine. I try to be intellectually honest, so I admit that possibility. However, lots of liberal people are going to be hypocritical about it and the conservatives would vote against it, so I don't think it would be very likely that it would ever be an issue.

I didn't mean that your definition of marriage for the purposes of argument was a sacrament, I just mean many Catholics would consider it that. Many others wouldn't. The problem is that if you ask 30 people of 30 backgrounds what the definition of marriage is, you'll probably get a lot of different answers (probably not 30 though : ). So, which definition do we use? The problem with your definition is that if we says a union between two people for love with an openness to children it still works and it allows gays. Unless you were planning to outlaw all sterile marriages?

[Kosh]

yeah, that sounds like you.

The dog part was kinda a joke. But not entirely unheard of. But I would agree with your analysis of it.

And as for polygamy...I also hope I am intellectually honest and I think that if Gay Marriage is okay so is Polygamy. I think, however, that neither are.

I don't know what definition to use. Debates are so hard when people can't even agree on definitions. Most crucial part, in my opinion, of a debate.

That being said, I prefer mine.
Oh, need to reply/refute a couple stuff too: Mistyped above, meant to say between a man and a woman. srry. So my definition is "union between a man and a woman for love with openness to children". Sterile marriages are okay, b/c you gots adoption! A far better solution to pregnancy than abortion. Off topic, but whats your view on abortion anyway?

oh, and I prayed for you today. I know you don't think it does any good, but thats what I'm trying to help with.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Kosh

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111500' date='Nov 4 2006, 11:02 PM']
yeah, that sounds like you.

The dog part was kinda a joke. But not entirely unheard of. But I would agree with your analysis of it.

And as for polygamy...I also hope I am intellectually honest and I think that if Gay Marriage is okay so is Polygamy. I think, however, that neither are.

I don't know what definition to use. Debates are so hard when people can't even agree on definitions. Most crucial part, in my opinion, of a debate.

That being said, I prefer mine.
[/quote]

Well, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. Somehow I just don't see it happening. If gay marriage comes up for a vote in California...well...I don't vote. But I'd strongly consider voting for it. I know you would do the opposite in your case. Fortunately, I'm not gay so it doesn't make an iota of difference to me one way or the other.

[Kosh]

well thats your opinion, but if you only vote by things that affect you personally you ain't gonna vote that often.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111503' date='Nov 4 2006, 11:06 PM']
well thats your opinion, but if you only vote by things that affect you personally you ain't gonna vote that often.
[/quote]

Well technically I can't vote anyway because I have an ID and a Social Security card with one name and such, and a birth certificate with another name and such. So... I should really fix that eventually...

[Anomaly]

Are you people aware that the Bishops in the North East area of the US are helping draft legislation for Same Sex Civil Unions? That's okay as long as they aren't married?

Edit to add:
Dug a little further. This is up in New Jersey. I guess the Bishops are trying to not let a bad law get worse.

[quote]the State Supreme Court in its 4-3 decision said that the state legislature must decide whether to grant this equality through marriage or another form of civil partnership. It gave the legislature 180 days to modify current laws or draft a new one.

The bishops' Oct. 25 statement, signed by Newark Archbishop John J. Myers, conference president, said the legislature is where the discussion of marriage "rightly belongs."

"For the sake of constitutional democracy as well as for the sake of marriage itself, the proper place for such discussion must rest with the elected representatives of the people of this state," said Archbishop Myers.

"Even if marriage were a type of institution that could be redefined, it would not be up to the court to decide whether to redefine it," he said.

At the same time, the archbishop said that "marriage is not the creation of the state." He called it a "natural institution – with its own characteristics and features – that is prior to any particular political or legal system." [/quote]

Edited November 5, 2006 by Anomaly

[Kosh]

huh???

oh, and I also don't think the government should be messing around with this, period.

And define a Civil Union. (b/c ambiguity based on definitions is not cool)

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111443' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:04 PM']
I guess it depends on what you are researching. If my research requires locating news articles, Google.com or news.google.com is a better choice. If I want an authority on a particular subject, scholar.google.com is better. What is nice about Google.com is that if you are searching on a topic and hits at its others sites, like scholar.google.com, exist, it'll show up at the top of google.com's search results. Pretty smart system.
[/quote]
Is Google a "stupid search tool"? I was reminded of the remark made in this thread about Google being a stupid search tool when I read the following news story:

[quote]
[b]"Doctors using Google to diagnose illnesses"[/b]

The internet search engine Google has added another impressive string to its bow - by helping doctors diagnose illnesses, according to a new study.

[b]Researchers found that almost six-in-10 difficult cases can be solved by using the world wide web as a diagnostic aid.[/b]

[clipped]

Google searches found the correct diagnosis in 15 (58 per cent) of cases. Respiratory and sleep physician Dr Hangwi Tang, who led the study, said: "[b]Doctors adept at using the internet [color="#FF0000"]use Google[/color] to help them diagnose difficult cases[/b].

"As described in the New England Journal of Medicine, a doctor astonished her colleagues including an eminent professor by correctly diagnosing IPEX (immunodeficiency, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X linked) syndrome.

[b]She admitted that the diagnosis 'popped right out' after she entered the salient features into Google." [/b]
...
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415562&in_page_id=1770"]Source[/url]
[/quote]
Score another one for Google. If it's good enough to save lives, it's good enough to refute arguments. :

[Guest trevorh_2000]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1109026' date='Nov 2 2006, 04:06 PM']
but we don't leave paralyzed people with nothing. To help them, we do more then just put in a wheelchir ramp. There is plenty being done to get it to the point when we can undo a handicap and give the person another chance to have the full function of their legs.

If homosexuality was seen by society as the unnatural state that it is, then we would be one step closer to helping these people get back on the right track. Our culture has given up on the fact that homosexuality can be helped and in fact reversed because it no longer sees anything wrong or distorted with it.

So if I am a consenting adult, does that mean I could go rape a dog? or go slash peoples tires? what if I was brought up thinking that was okay?
[/quote]
No, you cant go rape a dog, because the dog didnt consent to it. The tires didnt consent to be slashed either. Think before you speak!

[Veritas]

[quote name='trevorh_2000' post='1126579' date='Nov 23 2006, 12:17 AM']
No, you cant go rape a dog, because the dog didnt consent to it. The tires didnt consent to be slashed either. Think before you speak!
[/quote]

+

If not the manner in which you speak, I must agree that the examples aren't very comparable... what were you trying to say Didymus?

Edited November 23, 2006 by Veritas