havok579257 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790903' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:15 PM']No, in that case there is a rational, objectively verifiable reason for setting restrictions. You need to read more carefully, with all due respect. I have never denied that a government can restrict the rights of individuals.[/quote] ok, then by your rational, if gay marriage is ever made into law, then there should be restrictions on it, since its is detrimental to the human race, since one can not procreate through gay marriage. Except won't that then be considered unfar to the gay community since hetero marriage will have no restrictions on it and gay marriage will have resticrtions oin it. Like only X amount of gays can be married at one time. Won't gay people say it infringes on their rights and that we then get into the instance of seperate but not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Socrates' post='1790878' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:02 PM']Yes, Hassan, that is how a marriage is consummated. I wouldn't say "boils down to" - there's obviously more than that - but that's an essential element.[/quote] According to you. Beca[quote]use such an act [mod]Mature content. --Era Might[/mod] is one that is open to creation of new human life, and the foundation of a new family. It is for that reason that marriage is sacred and worthy of society's recognition.[/quote] Again, according to you. I see no reason to base our laws off the theological claims of the Catholic Church any more than those of a Salafi Muslim or [insert religious sect here]. [quote][mod]Mature content. --Era Might[/mod] The "gays" need to grow up, and realize that the rest of the world does not exist to cater to their every whim.[/quote] They are not asking the world to "cater" to their whims, they are asking you not to use the legal system restrict their quest to lead meaningful lives with an individual they wish to commit to. [quote]And, yeah, Sean Penn is a liberal idiot, but that's a redundant statement.[/quote] LOL! OMG! that is just so clever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790916' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:20 PM']ok, then by your rational, if gay marriage is ever made into law, then there should be restrictions on it, since its is detrimental to the human race, since one can not procreate through gay marriage.[/quote] That would not be detrimantal to any living human being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790917' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:21 PM']According to you. Beca Again, according to you. I see no reason to base our laws off the theological claims of the Catholic Church any more than those of a Salafi Muslim or [insert religious sect here]. They are not asking the world to "cater" to their whims, they are asking you not to use the legal system restrict their quest to lead meaningful lives with an individual they wish to commit to. LOL! OMG! that is just so clever! [/quote] 1.Actually its not just according to him, its according to science. The union of a male and female in its bases form is about procreation. Something not possible with gay marriage. So its not just religion, its science which also says this. 2. Except our society, our form of government, our laws are based off of christian theology. So why should we suddenly change the very ideals our government were formed on? Should we not remain true to the man who helped create this country and its form of government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Socrates' post='1790907' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:16 PM'][url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=90982&view=findpost&p=1790343"]Sirklawd's post here[/url] sums it all up very nicely.[/quote] I have already responded to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790916' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:20 PM']ok, then by your rational, if gay marriage is ever made into law, then there should be restrictions on it, since its is detrimental to the human race, since one can not procreate through gay marriage. That would not be detrimantal to any living human being[/quote] Actually it would be detrimental to the human race, which involves every person in the world. If to many people go into gay marriage, the human race becomes extinct. The same goes for incest relationships like we posted above. They are one in the same. You can't have restrcitions on one and not the there, since your restrictions are based off of the same problem that both have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790923' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:25 PM']1.Actually its not just according to him, its according to science.[/quote] Science makes no claims regarding the proper nature of marriage [quote]The union of a male and female in its bases form is about procreation. Something not possible with gay marriage. So its not just religion, its science which also says this.[/quote] nope [quote]2. Except our society, our form of government, our laws are based off of christian theology. So why should we suddenly change the very ideals our government were formed on? Should we not remain true to the man who helped create this country and its form of government?[/quote] The structure of our government was derived, for the most part, from several key enlightnment thinkers, not Christian theology. Many sbsequent laws were formed in response to the religious beleifs of the populace of the time, such as the permissability of slavery, however as we as a nation have matured we have ousted many of these laws. Anti-sodomy laws would be a good example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790927' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:28 PM']Actually it would be detrimental to the human race, which involves every person in the world. If to many people go into gay marriage, the human race becomes extinct. The same goes for incest relationships like we posted above. They are one in the same. You can't have restrcitions on one and not the there, since your restrictions are based off of the same problem that both have.[/quote] Restriction on procreation of related individuals was with regards to actual damage to the gene pool which would have a direct impact on any children they had. If such a relationship would have such implications, that is not necessairly the case. With regards to homosexuality, by that logic any marriage where the man and woman did not plan on having children would also be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790928' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:29 PM']Science makes no claims regarding the proper nature of marriage nope The structure of our government was derived, for the most part, from several key enlightnment thinkers, not Christian theology. Many sbsequent laws were formed in response to the religious beleifs of the populace of the time, such as the permissability of slavery, however as we as a nation have matured we have ousted many of these laws. Anti-sodomy laws would be a good example[/quote] Please who me where science says a union between a male and female in its most base form is not about procreation. Just loo at men and women and how men are attracted to a women more when she is ovulating due to hormones being give off. Thinkers who based the government off of the thought that there was a higher power in the universe. Just look how many times God is mentioned in early laws. Actually sodomy is still illegal in most states. Meaning, the law is still on the books. Its just the laws are not enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790934' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:34 PM']Please who me where science says a union between a male and female in its most base form is not about procreation. Just loo at men and women and how men are attracted to a women more when she is ovulating due to hormones being give off. Thinkers who based the government off of the thought that there was a higher power in the universe. Just look how many times God is mentioned in early laws.[/quote] Biology provides a description of human mating habits and fertility, it makes no normative claims from this, nor does it make any claims with regards to the correct form of marriage [quote]Actually sodomy is still illegal in most states. Meaning, the law is still on the books. Its just the laws are not enforced.[/quote] No, they are unconstitutional Lawrence v Johnson I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790917' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:21 PM']According to you.[/quote] And pretty much every human being in history, prior to the "gay marriage" silliness of the past decade. [quote]Beca Again, according to you. I see no reason to base our laws off the theological claims of the Catholic Church any more than those of a Salafi Muslim or [insert religious sect here].[/quote] So the whole thing about where the penis needs to go to make babies is a theological claim? Funny, I'd always thought it was biological fact. So what do the Salafi Muslims say about the birds and bees? [quote]They are not asking the world to "cater" to their whims, they are asking you not to use the legal system restrict their quest to lead meaningful lives with an individual they wish to commit to.[/quote] So the government owes legal recognition and financial benefits to everyone's "quest to lead meaningful lives"? Please. To use an earlier example of Havok's, what if my "quest to lead a meaningful life" involves prancing around naked in public? Does the government have to support that? Homosexuals today are free to "lead meaningful lives" however they want to. The rest of us are not obligated to call it a "marriage" or award it any legal privileges. [quote]LOL! OMG! that is just so clever![/quote]Thank you, thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Hassan, there is no need for an objective verifiable scientific fact to be present in order to restrict someone's rights. All is needed is 51% of the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790930' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:31 PM']Restriction on procreation of related individuals was with regards to actual damage to the gene pool which would have a direct impact on any children they had. If such a relationship would have such implications, that is not necessairly the case. With regards to homosexuality, by that logic any marriage where the man and woman did not plan on having children would also be illegal.[/quote] Your saying the government has no right to restrict someone's rights but then come back and say it can for select instances. If the majority of the world did gay marriage, it would wipe out the human race, same as incest unions. Both fall under the same logic. If one should ahve restrictions to preserve the human race, then the other similar instance should as well according to your theroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790937' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:40 PM']Biology provides a description of human mating habits and fertility, it makes no normative claims from this, nor does it make any claims with regards to the correct form of marriage No, they are unconstitutional Lawrence v Johnson I think[/quote] 1. But what is marriage in biology formats but the mating of two humans. If you take God out of the equation, then marriage is an advanced form of mating. Something that needs to be done between a male and a female of a species. 2. That doesn't change the fact they are still on the books and laws. Although stupid laws, but laws none the less. hence why they are not enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 [quote name='Socrates' post='1790942' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:56 PM']And pretty much every human being in history, prior to the "gay marriage" silliness of the past decade.[/quote] lol, I'd love to see your statistical data as to what "pretty much" every human being in history beleived marriage to be [quote]So the whole thing about where the penis needs to go to make babies is a theological claim? Funny, I'd always thought it was biological fact. So what do the Salafi Muslims say about the birds and bees?[/quote] No. "It is for that reason that marriage is sacred and worthy of society's recognition." That is a theological claim, or derivitive or your theology. [quote]So the government owes legal recognition and financial benefits to everyone's "quest to lead meaningful lives"?[/quote] I never said they did. The dispute here is a law which blocks a certian subset of the population from receiving the same legal recognition and finansial benefits as other citizens [quote]Please. To use an earlier example of Havok's, what if my "quest to lead a meaningful life" involves prancing around naked in public? Does the government have to support that? Homosexuals today are free to "lead meaningful lives" however they want to. The rest of us are not obligated to call it a "marriage" or award it any legal privileges.[/quote] They are not asking YOU to see it as marriage, they are asking the state to. They are simply asking for the same recognitin that heterosexuals may receive in the eyes of the state [quote]Thank you, thank you very much.[/quote] your welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now