If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[I Am Made of Scars]

Only responding to this one part because the rest will devolve into a screaming debate and deals with a religion I don't follow.

Llandygai

I'll admit that because of the great damage already done to marriage--and its meaning--through divorces, infidelity, and illicit cohabitation-- that I'm pretty much always on the losing end of any debates of this kind simply because people have already decided that the only essential part of marriage is some emotional commitment.

No, we haven't. Marriage goes much deeper than simple emotional attachment. A marriage is hard work. It's a second job. It's an emotional, societal, financial, spiritual commitment, whether religion is involved or not.

And given the rest of your argument, you should also list nonreligious unions as one of the contributing factors to the 'great damage already done to marriage', as marriage in the traditional sense you speak of is a religious contract at its core.

The tradition of marriage actually began long before Christ and the Bible. It began thousands of years before that time, and was primarily a business contract. Marriage in that traditional sense was completely destroyed by the religious concept of marriage, making it a union before God rather than a business transaction.

Llandygai

We've already stripped marriage of its uniqueness as a relationship by substituting unwed cohabitation and child-bearing. Once the gender-specific component is stripped--which is what legalising gay marriage will accomplish--then what uniqueness is left to that word "marriage"? Now it's about as special as getting a nice little gold star on your hand, since there are already plenty of relationships that involve people living together, having sex together, and even raising children together, but that do not currently constitute "marriage".

So by forcing a small but significant and highly visible percentage of the population to choose between being miserable and indulging in unwed intimacy and cohabitation, you intend to fix that?

You want marriage to be an example of what is right. You want it to be seen as better than the alternatives. Yet you're forcing people to choose the alternatives by denying them the ability to do what is right.

If literally the only thing at all unique about marriage is the fact that it's between a man and a woman, you've already lost. Because heterosexual cohabitation is just between a man and a woman, too, so that is not unique to marriage at all.

Llandygai

Additionally, I'm continually flabbergasted by the fact that gays already have equal rights--including the privilege to marry--that seems to be continuously ignored.

What does the Declaration of Independence say? There's this one line, it goes something like: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

As it stands, yes, gays can marry. They can marry into a miserable union that makes a mockery of everything marriage stands for. They cannot, however, be happy in such a union, and their heterosexual spouse is made miserable as well.

This is a very thin argument, so thin it's basically transparent. Again, you are forcing people to make a choice they should not be forced to make. You are saying that because you would be happy in a certain type of union, that should be good enough for them. You are saying that if they wish to be happy, they have to forgo what you would consider right and take up unwed cohabitation and possibly child-rearing.

This argument only flies when you're preaching to the choir.

Heterosexuals can marry and be happy.
Homosexuals can marry or be happy.

Heterosexuals can do what is right by your views and lead fulfilled lives.
Homosexuals can do what is right by your views or lead fulfilled lives.

See the fallacy in your argument?

Lastly, consider this- when children in our increasingly gay-tolerant country grow up seeing happy couples living together but unwed, they will receive the message that marriage is unnecessary. They'll grow up believing it's this old notion that no one believes in anymore, because hey, their uncles are in love and committed and have been together for years, but they aren't married.

In this frantic last-ditch effort to 'save' marriage, the anti-gay-marriage group may actually be destroying it. When you leave them no recourse but to ignore marriage and take up its alternatives, how are you protecting marriage?

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Llandygai

Celeblin Galadeneryn

If the Spirit of God is telling you something which is contradictory as to what the words of the bible say, I'm going to have to say what you perceive as the Spirit of God is either not that, or incorrect.

I agree with your principle sentiment, but given that a) I think it's commonly accepted that the Bible has not been translated perfectly, and b) the same words/phrases can be interpreted so many different way, and c) prophets told people to seek the spirit of God to help them understand scripture, I think there's plenty of room to be told something which may seem to even contradict the words on the page. I imagine that has happened at least once, somewhere.

Frankly anyone who cops to any of those reasons doesn't really have a good enough understanding of the language of the bible. It's written in rather plain Greek, to the point where we're certain Greek is not the author's first language. You can only get so many interpretations out of Greek written that way and a lot are going to agree with each other. Secondly, you cannot translate any work that complex perfectly. Now I know, I just said the Greek is simple by Greek standards, but being a language filled with concept words, if you want to translate it in a way in which it is readable, you have to make concessions.

And finally, I really want to know why at least the first two points should make you do anything but desire to learn the language for greater clarity.

As for the last point, why doesn't trying to get the best translation you can possible, to the point of going through each word yourself qualify as 'seeking the Spirit of God?"

Quote:

I ask this, though: do you believe God intended (or even thought it was practical) to have everyone who ever read the Bible, read it in the original tongues? If not, do you think God intended people to understand the Bible properly?

If that's difficult/impractical without having the Bible in its "most basic form" (I assume you mean "original texts"--correct me if I'm wrong), then what provisions would God have made to help assure people understood the Bibles they did end up with?

Why does he have to make provisions again? You don't need to understand Greek to understand certain biblical concepts such as the Law of Agape or any of the basics. Trying to cipher out specifics or debate the meaning of scripture in any form is what requires knowledge of Greek.

Looking at the time period here, we have to say that God doesn't even intend every Christian to read the Bible. It's written at a time of extremely low literacy. The provisions he seemed to have made, to speak from a point of view which sees God having a causational relationship in the Bible's production, are that the Bible is written in the most accessible language of the time period because of how schooling was carried out in the empire, and that it be written in a rather simple form of that language.

Quote:

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Furthermore, full understand of Greek and Hebrew (as a Classicist, I don't know much Hebrew, so that's why I dwell on the Greek) prevent eisegesis, which is what you're doing to the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. Eisegesis is importing your own meaning onto the text rather than taking meaning out of the text. As an example, most modern people who read Romans 1 aren't aware of Bacchic rites. Being aware of these would probably make you think twice before saying there is a condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1. You can rely on your own understanding, but you eisegesis is going to colour the way you read the text and is in turn going to cause you to falter.

I understand your point, there, as well, especially your allusion to a "bigger picture" as necessary to really understand the meaning of things. I've long maintained that facts are, essentially, useless without a context in which to frame them.

Eisegesis, however, is simply an inherent part of being human. All our experiences colour our perceptions. It's when we're not willing to admit or explore other possibilities (including that we may be wrong) that it becomes a problem. Eisegesis definitely has its place in our lives, or what would we use to help determine the wisdom of our choices? Someone else's eisegesis?

How about what the words actually say?

As someone who has to translate things and be graded on them, the more Eisegesis I bring to the table, the worse grade I'm going to get. Wisdom of our choices in this case doesn't have to come from the eisegesis of others. Things such as simply looking at the most common deffinition for this word rather than obscure references, since because we can tell that the biblical authors are not nativist speakers, and we know that they are trying to reach a wide audience, their vocabulary will thus be more simple, and more apt to use the most common definition.

Time period, location, and their relation to vocabulary are all things we can look at to remove our own eisegesis without resorting to the eisegesis of others.

[Llandygai]

I Am Made of Scars

Only responding to this one part because the rest will devolve into a screaming debate and deals with a religion I don't follow.

Understood. I know I talk way too much anyway. wink

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

... I'm pretty much always on the losing end of any debates of this kind simply because people have already decided that the only essential part of marriage is some emotional commitment.

No, we haven't. Marriage goes much deeper than simple emotional attachment. A marriage is hard work. It's a second job. It's an emotional, societal, financial, spiritual commitment, whether religion is involved or not.

Perhaps I should have added some qualifiers to my statement, there. I didn't mean to imply that everyone had decided that.

As to what marriage is, as per your list, I agree with that fully. I've been doing that for almost 9 years and almost 6 kids.

I Am Made of Scars

And given the rest of your argument, you should also list nonreligious unions as one of the contributing factors to the 'great damage already done to marriage', as marriage in the traditional sense you speak of is a religious contract at its core.

Eh, I agree with that as well, and maybe should have mentioned it in this forum, but my entire post is readily contestable as it is. Though this is a board about religion, I do like to bring up non-religious reasons because a) non-religious people often do not accept religious reasoning as valid, and b) I think God works through natural laws, not just a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors mysticism. I think that we can understand reasons behind His commandments that don't (on the surface, anyway) appear to be religious.

But yes, you're right.

The tradition of marriage actually began long before Christ and the Bible. It began thousands of years before that time, and was primarily a business contract. Marriage in that traditional sense was completely destroyed by the religious concept of marriage, making it a union before God rather than a business transaction.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

We've already stripped marriage of its uniqueness as a relationship by substituting unwed cohabitation and child-bearing. Once the gender-specific component is stripped--which is what legalising gay marriage will accomplish--then what uniqueness is left to that word "marriage"? Now it's about as special as getting a nice little gold star on your hand, since there are already plenty of relationships that involve people living together, having sex together, and even raising children together, but that do not currently constitute "marriage".

So by forcing a small but significant and highly visible percentage of the population to choose between being miserable and indulging in unwed intimacy and cohabitation, you intend to fix that?

I may be dumb, but I'm not dumb enough to think I can fix anything.

I Am Made of Scars

You want marriage to be an example of what is right. You want it to be seen as better than the alternatives. Yet you're forcing people to choose the alternatives by denying them the ability to do what is right.

I have no intentions of forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything. Coercion is a satanic technique I avoid.

I think the options to choose what is right are already sufficiently in place, and I think that marriage has been generally seen as the "better alternative" for much of human history. I could be wrong about that.

I'm denying no one any abilities to choose right or wrong by saying I do not support gay marriage. Obviously, people have gone ahead with those choices anyway (and not just the gay marriage one) regardless of standing laws or social customs.

Likewise, I don't see legalisation of gay marriage as somehow "liberating" anyone in their choices. It simply says that the law will countenance the practice as so defined, and that we are implying that one arrangement is effectively the equivalent of the other.

I Am Made of Scars

If literally the only thing at all unique about marriage is the fact that it's between a man and a woman, you've already lost. Because heterosexual cohabitation is just between a man and a woman, too, so that is not unique to marriage at all.

I think you really ought to re-read the statement I made that you were referring to. I already address this point.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Additionally, I'm continually flabbergasted by the fact that gays already have equal rights--including the privilege to marry--that seems to be continuously ignored.

What does the Declaration of Independence say? There's this one line, it goes something like: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Indeed. I don't see anything in there guaranteeing that such pursuits will actually bring happiness. People can do any number of things in "pursuit of happiness," but I'm sure that we'd both agree that some of those pursuits may be dead ends, yes?

I don't begrudge homosexual couples the protections of the law. Heck, I don't even object to marital-style tax breaks, insurance coverages, next-of-kin, etc. Even though I don't support gay marriage or homosexual practices in general, I'm not terribly bothered by the laws already on the books that give gay civil unions basically the same legal protections as marriage, except that such seems to embolden attempts to change what marriage is.

It's the radical alteration of the actual institution of marriage that concerns me.

I Am Made of Scars

As it stands, yes, gays can marry. They can marry into a miserable union that makes a mockery of everything marriage stands for. They cannot, however, be happy in such a union, and their heterosexual spouse is made miserable as well.

They cannot be happy? I question that. Happiness, at least as I've come to understand it, is, by and large, a product of our choices.

If a homosexual person marrying a heterosexual one makes a mockery of all that marriage stands for, then... why does it? Because they're not happy? Or because they're somehow unable to commit to such a relationship, simply because there's not the same erotic connection that would exist between them and someone of the same sex?

You said it: marriage is hard work. I suspect that we both know how many heterosexual marriages fail. I'm sure we both know "happy couples" that have had their hard times--sometimes for years--that still pulled through because of sheer determination and that same hard work. I see no reason why homosexual marriages would be any more immune to failure and misery than heterosexual ones, so frankly, where's the guarantee that a same sex marriage would make anyone any happier than a traditional one? And where's the guarantee that a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex will be miserable? Do we really understand that little of love?

Happiness a "love," such as they are, are nice ideals, and I don't begrudge them to anyone. But I don't believe that either are indispensably vital to what a marriage is intended for, or to what makes it the unique relationship it is.

The point, though, is that gays do have the option to marry, the same as heterosexuals.Therefore, to say that their "rights" are being denied is a patent falsehood, even though it's one of the chief drivers of the gay-marriage movement.

I Am Made of Scars

This is a very thin argument, so thin it's basically transparent. Again, you are forcing people to make a choice they should not be forced to make.

You keep bringing up the notion that I'm somehow forcing people to do anything. Can you please explain--especially since people have chosen gay marriage anyway, even in illegal situations--just how I'm forcing anyone to do anything?

Again, I'm not trying to force anything. I'm saying that there are solid reasons for maintaining certain qualifiers for a certain privilege. People are still just as free to choose to qualify as they are to choose not to. I don't think there's any wisdom in changing those qualifiers, and I challenge the authority of those who think they can.

I Am Made of Scars

You are saying that because you would be happy in a certain type of union, that should be good enough for them.

No sir, I am not. See above.

I Am Made of Scars

You are saying that if they wish to be happy, they have to forgo what you would consider right and take up unwed cohabitation and possibly child-rearing.

Again, see above. Since the inception of the United States, gay unions have always been unwed cohabitation in this country. There are plenty of heterosexual couples living in unwed cohabitation. It's not an unusual arrangement anymore, but that doesn't mean I think it's right or benefical, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple in question.

Near the end of my other post, I did mention that an apparent "solution" would be to just allow the marriages, thus removing the "unwed" status, but the "unwed" part is only half of the problem.

I Am Made of Scars

This argument only flies when you're preaching to the choir.

I know. I already said as much. However, I do believe that if we're honest with ourselves, we'll see more validity than you seem to have given it credit for. Yes, that sounds pretty arrogant and condescending, but believe me--I don't intend it that way at all.

I Am Made of Scars

Heterosexuals can marry and be happy.
Homosexuals can marry or be happy.

Heterosexuals can do what is right by your views and lead fulfilled lives.
Homosexuals can do what is right by your views or lead fulfilled lives.

See above.

These are not just "[my] views," and they're not even solely religious views. I do see real, negative social consequences involved in a general legalisation of gay marriage. I think the effects will be subtle--probably even undetectable in many cases--and only manifest themselves over time.

I won't bore you with a history lesson, but we're not the first nation to accept and promote homosexuality. Go see what history teaches; I don't expect you to take my word for anything anyway.

I really do not agree your statements above because they seem to entirely remove the power of an individual to determine his or her destiny and his or her happiness.

As for "fulfillment," is there nothing greater or more important than that? My concern is not in restricting individuals, but in preserving general society in a condition that it will continue to thrive. I think that the potential for harm to society as a whole outweighs the chosen unhappiness of some individuals. We can all choose happiness--that's not just some religious thing. I reject the notion that we have no control over our happiness or sense of fulfilment. Otherwise, what of single heterosexuals who never marry for reasons they can't control? Are they just "doomed" to a meaningless, empty life? Are they all utterly without value or recourse for joy?

I Am Made of Scars

See the fallacy in your argument?

I see what you think is a fallacy, yes: namely that removing the option to marry mandates an unjust restriction on certain parties, which then mandates a life of unhappy nothingness, while the "privileged few" who subscribe to "[my] views" are allowed to go on to achieve that which makes life worth living.

I Am Made of Scars

Lastly, consider this- when children in our increasingly gay-tolerant country grow up seeing happy couples living together but unwed, they will receive the message that marriage is unnecessary.

And that's exactly what has happened. In fact, I've seen efforts to ridicule married couples, and I know more than my fair share of people who are absolutely convinced that marriage is detrimental, and that they never want to get married because of it.

Do you not see any problem with that, then?

I Am Made of Scars

They'll grow up believing it's this old notion that no one believes in anymore, because hey, their uncles are in love and committed and have been together for years, but they aren't married.

In this frantic last-ditch effort to 'save' marriage, the anti-gay-marriage group may actually be destroying it. When you leave them no recourse but to ignore marriage and take up its alternatives, how are you protecting marriage?

You did mention that it was a "small...percentage" that wanted gay marriage, yes? For sake of argument, let's explore your line of thought for a minute.

Let's say we allow gay marriage. Suddenly, we have some increase in the number of married couples. Supposing all those couples stay together, you seem to be suggesting that their commitment--under the banner of a legal marriage--will be a force for promoting marriage in a world that (even before gay marriage was legalised ) is already suffering from a decreased value being placed on marriage in the first place, yes?

If I understand you right, then let me ask you some things.

1) Again, what guarantees that any gay marriage is more likely to succeed--let alone be a model marriage--than any heterosexual marriage? From what I've heard there are at least as many (if not more) problems, domestic disputes, and separations per capita with homosexual couples as there are with heterosexual couples. Perhaps I've already made this question moot by assuming all those couples stayed together.

2) If gay marriage is legalised, and people are suddenly "free" from my oppressive regime of bigotry, and our kids see that anyone "in love" can get married, how is that promoting marriage, other than to say that it's an open door to anyone? How does it show--as you suggested earlier--that marriage is in any way advantageous to simple cohabitation, aside from the legal protections and benefits?

3) Marriages fail, by and large, because of lack of commitment, in one form or other (i'm being very general there. Marriages don't fail because they're marriages, or because "men and women are different." They fail because someone makes enough of the wrong choices. How will gay marriage provide any more substantial model of commitment to our children than traditional marriage already does?

4) While the divorce rate seems to have stabilised (or even dropped in some places), data also indicate that the overall marriage rate has dropped. Is the number of gay couples seeking marriage going to be large enough to send a sufficiently powerful message to our children that "Yes! Marriage is the way to go!" as opposed to the many alternatives in place?

5) If marriage no longer has any gender or reproductive requirements, should it have any requirements at all? If so, what, and why? I ask this because it seems that one of the predominant arguments for gay marriage is that people "have a right to marry whoever they love." So... we reverse the Edmund-Tucker act, and pardon Warren Jeffs and his clan? We allow two or more couples the right to marry "whoever they love" just because of that?

I know those seem like tired arguments, but the only response I've ever heard to that question is, "It won't happen." Why won't it happen? What is there to stop the "right to marry whoever you love" if you just throw the door open like that, with that one, tenuous qualifier? Incest wouldn't matter because hey--no one needs to have kids, so we're not going to be breeding mutants. Polygamous relationships could work because as long as the women agree to it, why should we deny them that right to marry who they love? What? Abuse? Pshaw. That only happens in the cases on TV, right? I'm sure polygamists could all love each other equally--it worked at Woodstock, right?




Look, I don't want people to be unhappy. I just don't see legalising gay marriage as good for our society, and while it might make a select group happy for a while, does no one but that select group matter? Does it not mean anything that those who see marriage as something to be preserved will be subjected to a devaluation of their own marriages?

Seriously--we seem to be charging ahead on this issue waving the banner of "Civil rights" and "Equality for all" because we see some parallels with the success--and benefits--of womens' right, and racial rights, and yet we ignore some really important differences, and don't seem to pay any thought to what may come of this beyond the next few years. If it makes us happy now it must be good, right?

Who knows. Maybe I am just hopelessly out of touch and deluded.

[Llandygai]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Llandygai

Celeblin Galadeneryn

If the Spirit of God is telling you something which is contradictory as to what the words of the bible say, I'm going to have to say what you perceive as the Spirit of God is either not that, or incorrect.

[Llandy ramble].

Frankly anyone who cops to any of those reasons doesn't really have a good enough understanding of the language of the bible. It's written in rather plain Greek, to the point where we're certain Greek is not the author's first language. You can only get so many interpretations out of Greek written that way and a lot are going to agree with each other.

Two things:
1) I don't claim a great understanding of any scripture, and I'm particularly weak in my biblical knowledge (no pun intended).
2) I think there are plenty of words in any language that can be taken any number of ways. I wasn't talking about a straight translation. I suspect that you know just how chock-full of nuances the English language is, and I suspect that even other, simpler languages have words that are affected by context.

Even if people agree that a set of words translates a specific way, everyone seeing that set of words will see it with their own biases and slants. That was the point I was making.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Secondly, you cannot translate any work that complex perfectly. Now I know, I just said the Greek is simple by Greek standards, but being a language filled with concept words, if you want to translate it in a way in which it is readable, you have to make concessions.

Granted.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

And finally, I really want to know why at least the first two points should make you do anything but desire to learn the language for greater clarity.

On the contrary, they have spurred a greater search for clarity on my part, however paltry or insignificant. My biggest obstacle has been lack of time and sufficient sense of priority in learning Greek to ever really get a good study underway beyond the scant few words I know.

I did have a New Testament professor, in college, who was also a professor of Greek. He required us to have--and read--at least two, different translations of the New Testament. If I hadn't taken his class over a condensed summer-term schedule, he would have taught us Greek, and I'd understand things better.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

As for the last point, why doesn't trying to get the best translation you can possible, to the point of going through each word yourself qualify as 'seeking the Spirit of God?"

Forgive me if i even implied that. I certainly didn't mean it, if I said anything to indicate I felt that way. I seem to recall mentioning, in a previous post, that seeking the Spirit of God did involve study. Excuse my poor memory.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Quote:

I ask this, though: do you believe God intended (or even thought it was practical) to have everyone who ever read the Bible, read it in the original tongues? If not, do you think God intended people to understand the Bible properly?

If that's difficult/impractical without having the Bible in its "most basic form" (I assume you mean "original texts"--correct me if I'm wrong), then what provisions would God have made to help assure people understood the Bibles they did end up with?

Why does he have to make provisions again? You don't need to understand Greek to understand certain biblical concepts such as the Law of Agape or any of the basics. Trying to cipher out specifics or debate the meaning of scripture in any form is what requires knowledge of Greek.

Agreed. I just wonder what happens to those who do not have access to some of the knowledge that would help them understand context, and whether such a lack would invariably exclude them from any good discussion about the subject.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Looking at the time period here, we have to say that God doesn't even intend every Christian to read the Bible. It's written at a time of extremely low literacy. The provisions he seemed to have made, to speak from a point of view which sees God having a causational relationship in the Bible's production, are that the Bible is written in the most accessible language of the time period because of how schooling was carried out in the empire, and that it be written in a rather simple form of that language.

Noted.

Given that context, then, how do you think the Word of God would have been primarily distributed? Oral transmission? I understand that the use of songs to transmit history has been a tactic in some cultures.

That said, do you have any idea what intent God would have for us in our times, where literacy is generally much higher? The scriptures seem to indicate that their words are intended to be conveyed over the course of centuries. It makes sense that God would know that, and that He would also know that a literate people would eventually receive His word.

Do you think that we're simply expected to do all the study we can, before we have a sound understanding of the scriptures?

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Quote:

Eisegesis, however, is simply an inherent part of being human. All our experiences colour our perceptions. It's when we're not willing to admit or explore other possibilities (including that we may be wrong) that it becomes a problem. Eisegesis definitely has its place in our lives, or what would we use to help determine the wisdom of our choices? Someone else's eisegesis?

How about what the words actually say?

As someone who has to translate things and be graded on them, the more Eisegesis I bring to the table, the worse grade I'm going to get. Wisdom of our choices in this case doesn't have to come from the eisegesis of others. Things such as simply looking at the most common definition for this word rather than obscure references, since because we can tell that the biblical authors are not nativist speakers, and we know that they are trying to reach a wide audience, their vocabulary will thus be more simple, and more apt to use the most common definition.

Understood. I think that ties into my previous point about contextual understanding, rather than just literal translation, however simple or clear.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Time period, location, and their relation to vocabulary are all things we can look at to remove our own eisegesis without resorting to the eisegesis of others.

Indeed. Thanks.

[Edit] Celebin: you mentioned Romans 1 and Bacchic rites. Given your understanding of both of those, I'm interested in your interpretation of that scriptures, since you said that I might think twice about that passage as a reference to homosexuality if I knew those things.

Any help?

[I Am Made of Scars]

Llandygai

Understood. I know I talk way too much anyway. wink

You really do, but I happen to like that in a debate. ^^

Llandygai

Perhaps I should have added some qualifiers to my statement, there. I didn't mean to imply that everyone had decided that.

As to what marriage is, as per your list, I agree with that fully. I've been doing that for almost 9 years and almost 6 kids.

Probably. In as controversial an issue as this, it's best to be as clear and specific as possible. As we agree, that portion of the argument is dropped. ^^

Llandygai

Eh, I agree with that as well, and maybe should have mentioned it in this forum, but my entire post is readily contestable as it is. Though this is a board about religion, I do like to bring up non-religious reasons because a) non-religious people often do not accept religious reasoning as valid, and b) I think God works through natural laws, not just a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors mysticism. I think that we can understand reasons behind His commandments that don't (on the surface, anyway) appear to be religious.

But yes, you're right.

The tradition of marriage actually began long before Christ and the Bible. It began thousands of years before that time, and was primarily a business contract. Marriage in that traditional sense was completely destroyed by the religious concept of marriage, making it a union before God rather than a business transaction.

Again, as we agree in a general sort of way, we can probably drop this facet for now.

Llandygai

I may be dumb, but I'm not dumb enough to think I can fix anything.

I guess I'm a downright imbecile, then, because I believe it can be fixed.

Llandygai

I have no intentions of forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything. Coercion is a satanic technique I avoid.

It may not be intended as coercion, but it is. It says to homosexuals 'marry someone you feel nothing for, or don't get married at all'. They cannot go outside the two options, and are therefor forced to choose between them.

Llandygai

I think the options to choose what is right are already sufficiently in place, and I think that marriage has been generally seen as the "better alternative" for much of human history. I could be wrong about that.

I'm denying no one any abilities to choose right or wrong by saying I do not support gay marriage. Obviously, people have gone ahead with those choices anyway (and not just the gay marriage one) regardless of standing laws or social customs.

Likewise, I don't see legalisation of gay marriage as somehow "liberating" anyone in their choices. It simply says that the law will countenance the practice as so defined, and that we are implying that one arrangement is effectively the equivalent of the other.

Before I respond, please clarify that last paragraph. Which practice will be so defined as what, and what arrangement will to be effectively equal to?

Llandygai

I think you really ought to re-read the statement I made that you were referring to. I already address this point.

It doesn't seem to to me- perhaps you should elaborate?

Llandygai

Indeed. I don't see anything in there guaranteeing that such pursuits will actually bring happiness. People can do any number of things in "pursuit of happiness," but I'm sure that we'd both agree that some of those pursuits may be dead ends, yes?

Marriage in and of itself is a pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee- why should this specific pursuit be denied to these people?

Llandygai

I don't begrudge homosexual couples the protections of the law. Heck, I don't even object to marital-style tax breaks, insurance coverages, next-of-kin, etc. Even though I don't support gay marriage or homosexual practices in general, I'm not terribly bothered by the laws already on the books that give gay civil unions basically the same legal protections as marriage, except that such seems to embolden attempts to change what marriage is.

It's the radical alteration of the actual institution of marriage that concerns me.

Is it half so radical as when they decided people could choose their own spouses? What about when they did away with dowries, or when the wife was ceded to not be the legal property of her husband?

Llandygai

They cannot be happy? I question that. Happiness, at least as I've come to understand it, is, by and large, a product of our choices.

If a homosexual person marrying a heterosexual one makes a mockery of all that marriage stands for, then... why does it? Because they're not happy? Or because they're somehow unable to commit to such a relationship, simply because there's not the same erotic connection that would exist between them and someone of the same sex?

Because it is a lie. Trust me on that. Homosexual/heterosexual relationships of anything but a strictly platonic nature are miserable. I speak from experience there, as I agreed to date a friend of mine to help hide the fact that he was gay from his parents. He became so miserable that he confessed after only a few months that he'd started to hate spending time with me at all.

Lies create stress. Maintaining them increases that stress. Highly stressful lives are very rarely happy ones. Stress creates health problems, which in turn creates even more stress and further unhappiness.

Then consider the spouse. Consider a woman who finds her husband attractive, and has vowed to be faithful to him, but never gets to be intimate with him, as the very thought revolts him. How does she feel? Is she happy in this situation? I doubt it.

Llandygai

You said it: marriage is hard work. I suspect that we both know how many heterosexual marriages fail. I'm sure we both know "happy couples" that have had their hard times--sometimes for years--that still pulled through because of sheer determination and that same hard work. I see no reason why homosexual marriages would be any more immune to failure and misery than heterosexual ones, so frankly, where's the guarantee that a same sex marriage would make anyone any happier than a traditional one? And where's the guarantee that a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex will be miserable? Do we really understand that little of love?

Happiness a "love," such as they are, are nice ideals, and I don't begrudge them to anyone. But I don't believe that either are indispensably vital to what a marriage is intended for, or to what makes it the unique relationship it is.

What exactly is marriage for, and what is the uniqueness of it?

Llandygai

The point, though, is that gays do have the option to marry, the same as heterosexuals.Therefore, to say that their "rights" are being denied is a patent falsehood, even though it's one of the chief drivers of the gay-marriage movement.

Fine. I'll start lobbying to have disability services removed- they may be disabled, but they have the same work opportunities and public services as the rest of us, so they really don't need anything special. And we should stop printing signs in foreign languages, too. As long as the sign's there to be read, anyone who doesn't read English is just going to have to learn to; the option's available, after all, and printing the same thing seven times is a waste of resources, anyway.

Llandygai

You keep bringing up the notion that I'm somehow forcing people to do anything. Can you please explain--especially since people have chosen gay marriage anyway, even in illegal situations--just how I'm forcing anyone to do anything?

Common law marriage is not legal marriage. Promise rings are not wedding rings. A lifepartner is not a husband. They have chosen facsimiles of gay marriage, because that is all they're allowed.

Llandygai

Again, I'm not trying to force anything. I'm saying that there are solid reasons for maintaining certain qualifiers for a certain privilege. People are still just as free to choose to qualify as they are to choose not to. I don't think there's any wisdom in changing those qualifiers, and I challenge the authority of those who think they can.

And the growing scientific proof that homosexuality is biologically encoded and not a choice at all is entirely a fabrication, then? I am attracted to men. I cannot help that I find them attractive, and I will never find women attractive. No one contests that. But if I were a man stating that exact same fact in those exact same words, what would your response be?

Llandygai

Again, see above. Since the inception of the United States, gay unions have always been unwed cohabitation in this country. There are plenty of heterosexual couples living in unwed cohabitation. It's not an unusual arrangement anymore, but that doesn't mean I think it's right or benefical, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple in question.

So we agree that unwed cohabitation is bad regardless of sexual orientation. Why the opposition, then?

Llandygai

Near the end of my other post, I did mention that an apparent "solution" would be to just allow the marriages, thus removing the "unwed" status, but the "unwed" part is only half of the problem.

What's the other half, then?

Llandygai

See above.

These are not just "[my] views," and they're not even solely religious views. I do see real, negative social consequences involved in a general legalisation of gay marriage. I think the effects will be subtle--probably even undetectable in many cases--and only manifest themselves over time.

I won't bore you with a history lesson, but we're not the first nation to accept and promote homosexuality. Go see what history teaches; I don't expect you to take my word for anything anyway.

I really do not agree your statements above because they seem to entirely remove the power of an individual to determine his or her destiny and his or her happiness.

Answered above.

Llandygai

As for "fulfillment," is there nothing greater or more important than that? My concern is not in restricting individuals, but in preserving general society in a condition that it will continue to thrive. I think that the potential for harm to society as a whole outweighs the chosen unhappiness of some individuals. We can all choose happiness--that's not just some religious thing. I reject the notion that we have no control over our happiness or sense of fulfilment. Otherwise, what of single heterosexuals who never marry for reasons they can't control? Are they just "doomed" to a meaningless, empty life? Are they all utterly without value or recourse for joy?

You seem to misunderstand my argument. I never said one must be married to be happy. In fact, my argument is just the opposite- as things stand now, homosexuals cannot be happy if they are legally married. And my reasoning is stated above, so I won't repeat it here.

Llandygai

I see what you think is a fallacy, yes: namely that removing the option to marry mandates an unjust restriction on certain parties, which then mandates a life of unhappy nothingness, while the "privileged few" who subscribe to "[my] views" are allowed to go on to achieve that which makes life worth living.

See directly above this, as your response feeds into an apparent misunderstanding of my argument.

Llandygai

And that's exactly what has happened. In fact, I've seen efforts to ridicule married couples, and I know more than my fair share of people who are absolutely convinced that marriage is detrimental, and that they never want to get married because of it.

Do you not see any problem with that, then?

I see the problem with that, yes, and I believe the legalization of gay marriage will do some small part in reversing that.

You did mention that it was a "small...percentage" that wanted gay marriage, yes? For sake of argument, let's explore your line of thought for a minute.

The important part is the words you omitted- 'but significant and highly visible'.

Llandygai

1) Again, what guarantees that any gay marriage is more likely to succeed--let alone be a model marriage--than any heterosexual marriage? From what I've heard there are at least as many (if not more) problems, domestic disputes, and separations per capita with homosexual couples as there are with heterosexual couples. Perhaps I've already made this question moot by assuming all those couples stayed together.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. "They don't act married, so we shouldn't let them get married"? These people have grown up believing they will never be allowed to married someone they love and are committed to. They have no stablizing goal to aspire to. Until very recently, they couldn't even expect a publicly recognized relationship period, let alone a legal commitment of any kind. Of course their breakup rate is at least equal to that of heterosexuals.

Let's use an analogy here- it's like working at McDonald's. The heterosexuals are the ones who are hired with an eye towards becoming store manager, while the homosexuals are those who are hired with no expectation of making it to a higher position than cashier. Naturally, more of those stuck on the perpetual bottom rung will quit than those who have a shot at becoming the top dog.

Llandygai

2) If gay marriage is legalised, and people are suddenly "free" from my oppressive regime of bigotry, and our kids see that anyone "in love" can get married, how is that promoting marriage, other than to say that it's an open door to anyone? How does it show--as you suggested earlier--that marriage is in any way advantageous to simple cohabitation, aside from the legal protections and benefits?

This is a question more of how it hurts marriage. All the proposed alternatives for gay marriage, the legal partnerships, the unions, they're all easier to get and easier to dissolve than marriage, and offer all the benefits without the social obligation and responsibility, and usually with very little commitment by comparison. And believe me, they cannot offer these benefits solely to homosexuals, not in today's society. Marriage becomes even more outdated as more easy alternatives are introduced, until marriage becomes as looked-down on and snubbed as unwed and intimate couples used to be.

In this case, allowing gay marriage and doing away with the alternatives is an effective protection for marriage.

Llandygai

3) Marriages fail, by and large, because of lack of commitment, in one form or other (i'm being very general there. Marriages don't fail because they're marriages, or because "men and women are different." They fail because someone makes enough of the wrong choices. How will gay marriage provide any more substantial model of commitment to our children than traditional marriage already does?

Simple statistics. The percentage of gay marriages that last for any significant length of time will increase the number of examples of how marriage should be. Bad examples will increase as well, but not nearly as drastically as if that percentage of gays who would enter lifelong marriages together are left with no option but a less binding one that is not marriage. The number of committed marriages theoretically increases, and the number of committed nonmarriages thereby theoretically decreases.

Llandygai

4) While the divorce rate seems to have stabilised (or even dropped in some places), data also indicate that the overall marriage rate has dropped. Is the number of gay couples seeking marriage going to be large enough to send a sufficiently powerful message to our children that "Yes! Marriage is the way to go!" as opposed to the many alternatives in place?

How will we know unless we try? And further, how could it possibly hurt the cause?

Llandygai

5) If marriage no longer has any gender or reproductive requirements, should it have any requirements at all? If so, what, and why? I ask this because it seems that one of the predominant arguments for gay marriage is that people "have a right to marry whoever they love." So... we reverse the Edmund-Tucker act, and pardon Warren Jeffs and his clan? We allow two or more couples the right to marry "whoever they love" just because of that?

Yes. There is significant social, genetic, historical, and psychological reason to veto things such as incestuous marriage and zoophiliac marriages. I can list and cite them, if you'd like.

Llandygai

I know those seem like tired arguments, but the only response I've ever heard to that question is, "It won't happen." Why won't it happen? What is there to stop the "right to marry whoever you love" if you just throw the door open like that, with that one, tenuous qualifier? Incest wouldn't matter because hey--no one needs to have kids, so we're not going to be breeding mutants. Polygamous relationships could work because as long as the women agree to it, why should we deny them that right to marry who they love? What? Abuse? Pshaw. That only happens in the cases on TV, right? I'm sure polygamists could all love each other equally--it worked at Woodstock, right?

Again, give me the word, and I will give you the reasons.

Llandygai

Look, I don't want people to be unhappy. I just don't see legalising gay marriage as good for our society, and while it might make a select group happy for a while, does no one but that select group matter? Does it not mean anything that those who see marriage as something to be preserved will be subjected to a devaluation of their own marriages?

How does homosexual marriage devaluate heterosexual marriage?

Llandygai

Seriously--we seem to be charging ahead on this issue waving the banner of "Civil rights" and "Equality for all" because we see some parallels with the success--and benefits--of womens' right, and racial rights, and yet we ignore some really important differences, and don't seem to pay any thought to what may come of this beyond the next few years. If it makes us happy now it must be good, right?

Not true. While some supporters are of that mind, I and many like me are not. It comes down to a question of which option hurts more people, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to how allowing gays to marry will harm heterosexuals, much less enough to justify the harm being specifically and in some cases violently denied this harms homosexuals.

Llandygai

Who knows. Maybe I am just hopelessly out of touch and deluded.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Llandygai]

Since you dropped some of the points, I'll just exclude them from my reply.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Understood. I know I talk way too much anyway. wink

You really do, but I happen to like that in a debate. ^^

*Grins* I should mention, if I haven’t before, that I keep talking not because I expect to “win” or anything. I just figure that if someone is going to make a point—especially on such a hot topic—that it’s nice when they explain themselves where practical.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

I may be dumb, but I'm not dumb enough to think I can fix anything.

I guess I'm a downright imbecile, then, because I believe it can be fixed.

Then maybe I misunderstood what you thought needed to be/could be fixed. Explain?

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

I have no intentions of forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything. Coercion is a satanic technique I avoid.

It may not be intended as coercion, but it is. It says to homosexuals 'marry someone you feel nothing for, or don't get married at all'. They cannot go outside the two options, and are therefor forced to choose between them.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I already mentioned that people have made both choices already, regardless of standing laws. I think the thing they cannot effectively choose would be the resulting consequence of the initial choice.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

[LLandy's comments on making homosexual marriage equal heterosexual marriage.]

Before I respond, please clarify that last paragraph. Which practice will be so defined as what, and what arrangement will to be effectively equal to?

Legalising gay marriage says that the law will allow a same-sex union ("the practice so defined" wink to be equated with an opposite-sex union (the "effectively equal to" wink .

Did that help?

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

I think you really ought to re-read the statement I made that you were referring to. I already address this point.

It doesn't seem to to me- perhaps you should elaborate?

Namely that I already stated that there are "plenty of" cohabitating relationships, even involving mutual child rearing, which has already removed that facet of uniqueness. from marriage. As I read your response (and maybe I read it all wrong), you essentially repeated what I'd already said.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Indeed. I don't see anything in there guaranteeing that such pursuits will actually bring happiness. People can do any number of things in "pursuit of happiness," but I'm sure that we'd both agree that some of those pursuits may be dead ends, yes?

Marriage in and of itself is a pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee- why should this specific pursuit be denied to these people?

Let me ask you a more general question: why should anything be denied to anyone? I think we need to establish that first.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

It's the radical alteration of the actual institution of marriage that concerns me.

Is it half so radical as when they decided people could choose their own spouses? What about when they did away with dowries, or when the wife was ceded to not be the legal property of her husband?

As with the interracial marriage rulings, those changes are changes in how each party is perceived/valued. I'm not arguing that those things should remain, or that interracial marriages ought to be barred. I'm arguing that there are significant differences between the restrictions listed above (and including the aforementioned interracial issue) and marriage as a two-gender scenario.

This is why I raised the issue of semantics: we've already redefined the purpose of marriage (I say that generally, please note), which makes restrictions such as gender roles seem needless and foolish.

It's that oversimplified analogy of the colour purple.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

If a homosexual person marrying a heterosexual one makes a mockery of all that marriage stands for, then... why does it?

Because it is a lie. Trust me on that. Homosexual/heterosexual relationships of anything but a strictly platonic nature are miserable. I speak from experience there, as I agreed to date a friend of mine to help hide the fact that he was gay from his parents. He became so miserable that he confessed after only a few months that he'd started to hate spending time with me at all.

Lies create stress. Maintaining them increases that stress. Highly stressful lives are very rarely happy ones. Stress creates health problems, which in turn creates even more stress and further unhappiness.

Then consider the spouse. Consider a woman who finds her husband attractive, and has vowed to be faithful to him, but never gets to be intimate with him, as the very thought revolts him. How does she feel? Is she happy in this situation? I doubt it.

You raise a good point, and one I have considered before. No, I wouldn't ask anyone to live a lie. You're right that it would cause stress, and all the pertaining problems.

My only real dispute is with the idea that it needs to be a lie. I'm not going to say that marriage should happen whether or not you love someone, but again I refer to your earlier point about marriage being hard work, etc. Can a person with same-sex attractions not commit to the happiness and comfort of someone of the opposite sex without previously being sexually attracted?

The crux of this particular point seems to be that without a sexual attraction, marriage is pointless. Am I getting that correctly?

As for the woman not getting sex... boy, there's a reversal of a common scenario. wink wink wink Usually it's the horny guy who's ready to go, while the wife just "doesn't feel like it." wink Trust me-- I've experience much chagrin because of that exact scenario.

That said, it does raise a point to be explored: what of heterosexual couples who rarely have sex because one partner "doesn't feel like it"? What of those that continue for years that way, for one reason or another? Is that enough reason to divorce, perhaps? Or are there other facets to the marriage that make it worth preserving despite a lack of intimacy?

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Happiness a "love," such as they are, are nice ideals, and I don't begrudge them to anyone. But I don't believe that either are indispensably vital to what a marriage is intended for, or to what makes it the unique relationship it is.

What exactly is marriage for, and what is the uniqueness of it?

I think marriage has two primary purposes: 1) to elevate and promote the happiness of the couple as such (as opposed to just making two individuals happy) which then promotes the good of primary purpose 2) the responsible bearing and rearing of children in order to perpetuate the race, and to provide a stable seedbed for dependable, well-adjusted citizens.

Anciently--and you may or may not have seen references to it in the Bible (I'm not sure your religious bent, or what credit you give the Bible)-- childlessness was seen as a curse. Yes, I understand all the arguments about how "back then," women were so very dependent on men that they just had to have kids, or they'd lose their inheritance, lose their man, and be considered worthless.

Maybe. Maybe.

Or perhaps people have just forgotten the value of children, both to their own happiness, and to the good of civilization in general?

Marriage between a man and woman is advantageous to alternatives because:
1) It's a more solid commitment than unwed relationships, increasing the likelihood that both parents (who will, ideally, also be the biological parents) remain in the home to provide a beneficial model of commitment, dependability, affection, and faithfulness to their children. Ideally--and this does seem to be the case, generally speaking--the children will then adhere to that model, which increases the likelihood of success in their own marriages, and in other, less demanding commitments.

2) The presence of two parents of the opposite sex provides balance and a broader range of benefits to the children. Simply put, men and women are different--not just in social gender roles, but biologically, mentally, and emotionally. I'm not going to spam the thread with links to studies, since those are usually disputed, but Google is your friend if you really want to find the many evidences of the advatages that opposite-sex parentage provides

3) A same sex couple may be allowed to adopt, but their net contribution to the gene pool is, by nature, automatically limited to zero in the case of gay men, and still limited in the case of a lesbian couple. Even in-vitro fertilisation requires sperm from some male who is not part of the couple. If IVF is either unavailable or unsuccessful, then even lesbian couples have a self-terminating genetic legacy. It's not religion. It's not right-wing propoganda. It's not even opinion. It's jut biology.

That's why stable, enduring civilizations are built upon heterosexual relations. Even unwed heterosexual couples can contribute biologically. Their union will likely run the risks of any unwed union, but it's still potentially viable from a reproductive standpoint.

Even in past societies where homosexuality was an acceptable practice (I recall that Socrates even encouraged it among members of the military), the bearing and rearing of children was left to heterosexual couples.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

The point, though, is that gays do have the option to marry, the same as heterosexuals.Therefore, to say that their "rights" are being denied is a patent falsehood, even though it's one of the chief drivers of the gay-marriage movement.

Fine. I'll start lobbying to have disability services removed- they may be disabled, but they have the same work opportunities and public services as the rest of us, so they really don't need anything special. And we should stop printing signs in foreign languages, too. As long as the sign's there to be read, anyone who doesn't read English is just going to have to learn to; the option's available, after all, and printing the same thing seven times is a waste of resources, anyway.

So you don't see the inherent differences between "accessibility issues" and "privileges"? Interesting.

See, the underlying argument there--the one that would make that comparison start to work--is the idea that homosexuals have no choice in the matter, just as someone who, say, has lost a leg, has no choice as to whether he/she can walk.

That's where I think we'll likely never agree. I may have been "wired" to be sexually attracted to females, but then, why do we keep seem to circle the notion that marriage absolutely requires--or at least is only really workable--based on sexual attraction and compatibility? That's what I'm failing to understand.

Marriage is about so much more than sex. I don't think I can overstate that. And yes, I do believe that a marriage can work and still be happy without intimacy. It's not one I'd try, or really even prescribe, but I think it can be done if people are determined enough.

Please understand that I'm not saying those kind of things by way of mandate--"You must do it my way or be unhappy!"--but I'm going after the underlying arguments that are used to support the gay marriage issue. If the foundation is not valid, then what of the superstructure?

Believe me--if I wanted to, I could make a good, solid case for why gays should be allowed to marry. I doubt it would be very original, but I could make it convincing, I suspect. I try not to blast arguments unless I find something inherently flawed. In my opinion, I have, so I don't support gay marriage. That's all. smile

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Can you please explain--especially since people have chosen gay marriage anyway, even in illegal situations--just how I'm forcing anyone to do anything?

Common law marriage is not legal marriage. Promise rings are not wedding rings. A lifepartner is not a husband. They have chosen facsimiles of gay marriage, because that is all they're allowed.

I understand your point--that I'm opposed to allowing the "real" option, and that alternatives are simply not equal--but all your answer does for me is highlight the fact that we seem to be using different definitions of the words "force" and "coercion."

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Again, I'm not trying to force anything. I'm saying that there are solid reasons for maintaining certain qualifiers for a certain privilege. People are still just as free to choose to qualify as they are to choose not to. I don't think there's any wisdom in changing those qualifiers, and I challenge the authority of those who think they can.

And the growing scientific proof that homosexuality is biologically encoded and not a choice at all is entirely a fabrication, then? I am attracted to men. I cannot help that I find them attractive, and I will never find women attractive. No one contests that. But if I were a man stating that exact same fact in those exact same words, what would your response be?

I don't recall saying it wasn't biologically coded. I was challenging the authority to change as enduring and as established institution as male-female marriage.

As to the scientific evidence, yes, it's there. Yes, some of it may be valid. I don't doubt that your feel compelled in your attraction toward men anymore than I find it natural that I am attracted to women.

What would my response be if you felt same sex attraction? *Shrugs* So you feel same-sex attraction. It happens sometimes. It may limit how much you enjoy certain options, but it doesn't necessarily remove those options.

Yet again it comes down to sexual attraction. I really don't know that that's a solid reason to be calling for the kinds of change gay marriage would entail. Really, I wish straight people would also get over the "gotta be in love" thing, and do more to make their heterosexual marriage work. The whole "we fell out of love" reason always struck me as paltry and childish.

I Am Made of Scars

So we agree that unwed cohabitation is bad regardless of sexual orientation. Why the opposition, then?

Opposition to just granting legality to same-sex couples. I thought I'd already elaborated on that rambling length. I'd restate but my time is short (I may not respond to your response until tomorrow) and I'd like to get through some more of your points.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Near the end of my other post, I did mention that an apparent "solution" would be to just allow the marriages, thus removing the "unwed" status, but the "unwed" part is only half of the problem.

What's the other half, then?

See above--the whole "purpose for marriage" statement. Since we're on a religious board, I'll also pitch in the morality statement I made earlier.

I Am Made of Scars

You seem to misunderstand my argument. I never said one must be married to be happy. In fact, my argument is just the opposite- as things stand now, homosexuals cannot be happy if they are legally married. And my reasoning is stated above, so I won't repeat it here.

Apologies for my misunderstanding. I think it had to do with the way the two arguments were phrased. As for being unable to be happy in a heterosexual marriage... I won't deny that it might be extremely difficult, but I still challenge the solid "cannot." If you say "are not likely to be," then yes, I'd fully agree with that.

I guess this addresses the next point you made, too, where misunderstanding fed misunderstanding.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

And that's exactly what has happened. In fact, I've seen efforts to ridicule married couples, and I know more than my fair share of people who are absolutely convinced that marriage is detrimental, and that they never want to get married because of it.

Do you not see any problem with that, then?

I see the problem with that, yes, and I believe the legalization of gay marriage will do some small part in reversing that.

Fair enough.

I Am Made of Scars

You did mention that it was a "small...percentage" that wanted gay marriage, yes? For sake of argument, let's explore your line of thought for a minute.

The important part is the words you omitted- 'but significant and highly visible'.

True enough, and that was deliberate, but perhaps it was a mistake. I guess we'd have to quantify just how "significant" that percentage is. I suppose celebrities fall into that "small, but significant and highly visible" category, and they're fairly influential despite their small numbers.

I stand corrected.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

1) Again, what guarantees that any gay marriage is more likely to succeed--let alone be a model marriage--than any heterosexual marriage? From what I've heard there are at least as many (if not more) problems, domestic disputes, and separations per capita with homosexual couples as there are with heterosexual couples. Perhaps I've already made this question moot by assuming all those couples stayed together.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. "They don't act married, so we shouldn't let them get married"? These people have grown up believing they will never be allowed to married someone they love and are committed to. They have no stablizing goal to aspire to. Until very recently, they couldn't even expect a publicly recognized relationship period, let alone a legal commitment of any kind. Of course their breakup rate is at least equal to that of heterosexuals.

Ridiculous or not, I think the question still stands. I guess now that homosexuality is mainstream, though, we'll have more opportunities to monitor things like that--the per capita success of homosexual relationships vs. heterosexual relationships.

That said, the much greater number of heterosexual couples automatically introduces greater variability, so maybe that comparison couldn't be effectively made because of inherent statistical biases. I think any kind of study would have to be very carefully assembled and conducted.

I Am Made of Scars

Let's use an analogy here- it's like working at McDonald's. The heterosexuals are the ones who are hired with an eye towards becoming store manager, while the homosexuals are those who are hired with no expectation of making it to a higher position than cashier. Naturally, more of those stuck on the perpetual bottom rung will quit than those who have a shot at becoming the top dog.

Understood. So now that they've got the chance, let's see how they do, okay? I still wonder how much more likely they'd be, given that homosexuals--as we're often reminded--are people too, meaning they're also subject to the same faults and shortcomings and weaknesses as heterosexual people.

You wouldn't happen to know how many marriage break up because of a poor sex life, would you?

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

2) If gay marriage is legalised, and people are suddenly "free" from my oppressive regime of bigotry, and our kids see that anyone "in love" can get married, how is that promoting marriage, other than to say that it's an open door to anyone? How does it show--as you suggested earlier--that marriage is in any way advantageous to simple cohabitation, aside from the legal protections and benefits?

This is a question more of how it hurts marriage. All the proposed alternatives for gay marriage, the legal partnerships, the unions, they're all easier to get and easier to dissolve than marriage, and offer all the benefits without the social obligation and responsibility, and usually with very little commitment by comparison.

I'm going to pause you right there, for a moment: why is the relationships commitment depended upon the level of legal recognition? Wouldn't inter-pesonal commitment be based on the choices of the two parties involved? If my marriage were suddenly nullified today, I'm fairly certain I'd be just as committed to the happiness and well-being of my wife and children.

Just curious.

I Am Made of Scars

And believe me, they cannot offer these benefits solely to homosexuals, not in today's society.

Well, that would make sense, yes? Since we're all about equality? Can't leave anyone out, now, can we? wink

I Am Made of Scars

Marriage becomes even more outdated as more easy alternatives are introduced, until marriage becomes as looked-down on and snubbed as unwed and intimate couples used to be.

In this case, allowing gay marriage and doing away with the alternatives is an effective protection for marriage.

That's an interesting case. I'll have to give it more thought later, when I have the time. Sorry--I really am rushed right now. I do, however, think that since those alternatives have already been introduced, that they're likely to continue to be introduced. Not all gay couples want to marry, if I understand correctly. I've even heard of some that oppose it. *Shrugs* Hearsay counts for little.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

3) Marriages fail, by and large, because of lack of commitment, in one form or other (i'm being very general there. Marriages don't fail because they're marriages, or because "men and women are different." They fail because someone makes enough of the wrong choices. How will gay marriage provide any more substantial model of commitment to our children than traditional marriage already does?

Simple statistics. The percentage of gay marriages that last for any significant length of time will increase the number of examples of how marriage should be. Bad examples will increase as well, but not nearly as drastically as if that percentage of gays who would enter lifelong marriages together are left with no option but a less binding one that is not marriage. The number of committed marriages theoretically increases, and the number of committed nonmarriages thereby theoretically decreases.

I'll probably have to address that tomorrow. In fact, due to time constraints, I think I'll just read the rest, but not answer any of it at the moment. I may have a chance later on today, but I doubt that, given the volume of what I still need to do once I get home.



Sorry to cut this short.

[Llandygai]

Okay. I'm back. smile

As for any links you want to send me? Sure. I don't think one can get a full picture of anything by only looking at one angle of things. I've already read a fair amount of stuff from opposing views, but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to read more.

About the comments on incest, polygamy, etc. they were said mostly tongue-in-cheek, but for a purpose: the idea that we have a "right" to "marry who we love" either needs some protective qualifiers added to it, or it really does open some doors that I think even proponents of gay marriage probably don't want open.

Yes, I'm well aware of the potential problems with incest and polygamous marriages, and I'm not advocating either. I'm just putting them out there for consideration, because the naked "marry who you love" argument really could be used to promote both those types of unions, and then some.

Anyway on with your points.

I'm going to revisit one, quickly.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

2) If gay marriage is legalised, and people are suddenly "free" from my oppressive regime of bigotry, and our kids see that anyone "in love" can get married, how is that promoting marriage, other than to say that it's an open door to anyone? How does it show--as you suggested earlier--that marriage is in any way advantageous to simple cohabitation, aside from the legal protections and benefits?

This is a question more of how it hurts marriage. All the proposed alternatives for gay marriage, the legal partnerships, the unions, they're all easier to get and easier to dissolve than marriage, and offer all the benefits without the social obligation and responsibility, and usually with very little commitment by comparison. And believe me, they cannot offer these benefits solely to homosexuals, not in today's society. Marriage becomes even more outdated as more easy alternatives are introduced, until marriage becomes as looked-down on and snubbed as unwed and intimate couples used to be.

In this case, allowing gay marriage and doing away with the alternatives is an effective protection for marriage.

The biggest reason I question that logic is because while it will allow for some unwed couples to become married--though they aren't currently allowed to in most states-- I'm not seeing anything there that will contribute to a definitive reversal of the trend of introducing the alternatives you mention. Those alternatives have been in the works for decades, and most of them--as best I can tell--independent of any move for gay marriage. Some people just don't want to get married, but they still want all the benefits of a legal marriage, so... we get what we've got.

Granted, the gay civil unions were a concession, but given the damage already done to marriage as a whole by infidelity, divorce, abuse, etc., I'm really not convinced that allowing a small percentage-- no matter how significant or visible--will really stem the existing tides of marital breakdown.

Perhaps its ironic that the per-capita divorce rate has decreased slightly in recent years, but not so much because of an increase in marital commitment, but rather because fewer people are choosing to marry in the first place, leaving those who really are more likely to choose success to get married.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

3) Marriages fail, by and large, because of lack of commitment, in one form or other (i'm being very general there. Marriages don't fail because they're marriages, or because "men and women are different." They fail because someone makes enough of the wrong choices. How will gay marriage provide any more substantial model of commitment to our children than traditional marriage already does?

Simple statistics. The percentage of gay marriages that last for any significant length of time will increase the number of examples of how marriage should be. Bad examples will increase as well, but not nearly as drastically as if that percentage of gays who would enter lifelong marriages together are left with no option but a less binding one that is not marriage. The number of committed marriages theoretically increases, and the number of committed nonmarriages thereby theoretically decreases.

I have a few questions there:
1) Do you really think that increase of lasting marriages provided by long-term gay marriages will provided a significant boost to the number of examples of good marriage?
2) Wouldn't it be just as effective, if not more so, to focus on saving existing marriages, and ensuring that new ones don't fall apart in the first place? Heh, we've spent billions bailing out mortgages, but I don't think temporary loss of housing will hurt the country anywhere near as much as loss of committed married couples.
3) The "bad examples" you mention: I'm not entirely sure I understand what you count as a "bad example" since the way you've phrased that seems to indicate that gay unions will suddenly become more stable and committed if allowed legal marital status. Are you just saying that the only reason a gay union would be a "bad example" is because of the unwed status?
4) How much stock do you put in your theories? I follow the logic just fine, by the way.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

4)... Is the number of gay couples seeking marriage going to be large enough to send a sufficiently powerful message to our children that "Yes! Marriage is the way to go!" as opposed to the many alternatives in place?

How will we know unless we try? And further, how could it possibly hurt the cause?

It has been tried. Homosexuality isn't by any means a "new" thing. Much of Europe has legalised gay marriage, to date. It hasn't been all that many years since they did it, but I think there's already a case study to be had, there. Ancient civilizations tried it to. Why aren't we studying them? Or are we, and it just hasn't been mentioned. In that case, what have we learned?

Beyond that, "How do we know unless we try?" Well... careful forethought about potentially negative consequences might just be enough to convince us we shouldn't even try in the first place; it's much harder to undo this kind of thing than to do it (take the battle over Prop 8 for instance).

How could it hurt the cause? Well, I don't pretend to know all the possible ways it could. But where we've already seen the democratic process challenged and overturned in the name of these "rights," I'm concerned that the "tolerance" mentality could easily mutate beyond some benign desire to grant privileges to minorities into something we just can't control.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

5) If marriage no longer has any gender or reproductive requirements, should it have any requirements at all?

Yes. There is significant social, genetic, historical, and psychological reason to veto things such as incestuous marriage and zoophiliac marriages. I can list and cite them, if you'd like.

I mentioned that above, so we'll just move on, and get back to this later when you've cited references. Again, I'm not promoting incest or zoophiliac marriages.

Funny that you mentioned historic and psychological reasons in that list. Part of my opposition to gay marriage is based on historic and psychological reasons as well. We'll hold off on that until later, as I said.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

I know those seem like tired arguments, but the only response I've ever heard to that question is, "It won't happen." Why won't it happen? ...

Again, give me the word, and I will give you the reasons.

Already given. I'd hunt the stuff down myself, but I really don't have near the time for research that I used to, sadly. sad

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Look, I don't want people to be unhappy. I just don't see legalising gay marriage as good for our society, and while it might make a select group happy for a while, does no one but that select group matter? Does it not mean anything that those who see marriage as something to be preserved will be subjected to a devaluation of their own marriages?

How does homosexual marriage devaluate heterosexual marriage?

I think before we answer that, we need to find common ground on what we think makes marriage valuable in the first place. We've already both agreed that unwed alternatives are not "as good"--i.e, not "as valuable"--but I think we're approaching the "value" issue very differently.

So let's define the value first.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Seriously--we seem to be charging ahead on this issue waving the banner of "Civil rights" and "Equality for all" because we see some parallels with the success--and benefits--of womens' right, and racial rights, and yet we ignore some really important differences, and don't seem to pay any thought to what may come of this beyond the next few years. If it makes us happy now it must be good, right?

Not true. While some supporters are of that mind, I and many like me are not. It comes down to a question of which option hurts more people, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to how allowing gays to marry will harm heterosexuals, much less enough to justify the harm being specifically and in some cases violently denied this harms homosexuals.

Admittedly, I make a lot of generalisations. I realise they're just that, so I hope you didn't take them as personal affronts. I choose those particular generalisations because it's the militant and extreme efforts that concern me the most.

Additionally, I generalise because there are exceptions to pretty much every rule. Any case I would present could easily be countered with valid exceptions, but the point is, I'm trying to determine what the rule is, and that requires me to be very sweeping and general, even while recognising that the rule is neither a mandate nor absolutely applicable to every case.

Which option hurts more people? See this is another one of those points where I think we'll just conclude to disagree. You seem to feel that allowing gay marriage does no harm to anyone, while denying it does cause harm, therefore, it's something vs. nothing, so the answer to who endures "greater harm" becomes immediately obvious.

My conclusion is that society as a whole stands to suffer from this kind of decision, just as it has already suffered from bad heterosexual marriages and related problems.

I Am Made of Scars

Llandygai

Who knows. Maybe I am just hopelessly out of touch and deluded.

Maybe, maybe not.

You're so kind. wink

[I Am Made of Scars]

This is going to take a very long time. >.>

I'm not quoting, because ye gods, that'll be a mess to work it out, and it's taking up a ton of space.

I myself don't stand by the marry whom you love platform, and I'm sorry to say that I therefore can offer you little to no insight into this.

But on to the points I can address.

First, that because there is no concrete proof that gay marriage will definitely reverse the anti-marriage trend in the United States, it shouldn't be allowed. Well, what of the proof that banning gay marriage will promote the anti-marriage trend in the United States? Because the only way for gays to enter into a lifelong committed relationship with those they wish is to not get married, they turn to marriage-lite solutions like civil unions and legalized domestic partnerships. This adds strength to the movement by simple means of momentum. They're using them, and using them to be committed and joined for life, which shows that these work, and marriage really isn't necessary.

Next, to your points on my statistics.
1- Yes. Yes, I do.
2- No. Once again, the pool of committed unwed relationships swells, while the pool of wed committed relationships dwindles. On the other hand, allowing gays to marry theoretically decreases unwed committed relationships and increases the number of wed commitments. Comparatively speaking, the difference is actually double its objective numerical value, since you're taking away from one group to add to the other.
3- By 'bad examples', I meant marriages that fall apart or end in divorce. Sorry for the confusion there.
4- A great deal. I'm by nature a timid, uncertain person, and I plainly will not enter into a discussion unless I'm very sure of my stance and feel strongly about the subject at hand.

Legal gay marriage in America as a whole has not been tried. It's been tried in other societies, with different societal expectations and different cultures. I really don't know as much about Pro 8 as I would like- I was too busy embroiling myself in the local gay marriage arena to look as far afield as the other side of the country. Not the smartest move, perhaps, and a futile one, since gay marriage is now out-and-out illegal in my home state.

I don't have time to cite sources at the moment - curse work and all the time it takes - but I will as soon as I have a few hours and some privacy.

In short, allowing incestuous marriages destroys the concept of family as well as the concept of marriage, and animals have no legal standing to enter into a binding contract such as marriage.

Onto what the value of marriage is to me.

This is probably going to sound either very silly or very crude to you, but as far as I can determine, the ultimate purpose of marriage is as a stabilizer. It's not called settling down for nothing.

If you look to James Q. Wilson's book The Moral Sense, he states the need for marriage quite clearly, as far as young men are concerned. At the time a man leaves his parent/parents' home, he is still not the best at controlling himself. He has little sense of responsibility to society, for the most part. The lack any real kind of social status in general, and are often very lonely.

Turn now to Robert Wright, author of The Moral Animal, and his observation- "An unmarried man between twenty-four and thirty-five years of age is about three times as likely to murder another male as is a married man of the same age .... He is also more likely to incur various risks-committing robbery, for example-to gain the resources that may attract women."

If you'll forgive me a somewhat biased source, I'll also quote Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marraige and his thoughts on the purpose of marriage.

"Marriage confers status: to be married in the eyes of society is to be grown up. Marriage creates stakes: someone depends on you. Marriage creates a safe harbor for sex. Marriage puts two heads together, pooling experience and braking impulsiveness. Of all the things a young person can do to move beyond the vulnerabilities of early adulthood, marriage is far and away the most fruitful. We all need domesticating, not in the veterinary sense but in a more literal, human sense: more stable, more productive, more mature, less self-obsessed, less impatient, less anxious. And marriage is a great domesticator."

I agree with the points and implied points of all three men- that marriage as an institution is needed to stabilize and mature those who take part in it. That is why I believe marriage to be better than any alternative or marriage-lite that one could propose.

Now, if you'll forgive a slight tangent that may seem off-topic, I'll go back to my point that gay marriage helps marriage in general.

Same-sex couple will become normal. That cannot be stopped, it cannot be changed, it can't even be slowed significantly.

Marriage is being surrounded by competition. This can be stopped, it can be changed.

Many anti-gay-marriage activists fail to see that by denying gays marriage, they are denying marriage itself much-needed support. With so many heterosexuals dismissing marriage as an unnecessary hassle and so many homosexuals practically begging to be allowed to marry, one has to wonder which camp helps marriage more.

On the one hand, you might say marriage doesn't need to change. Well, if marriage doesn't change, it's doomed. We are not a species that can exist with something stagnant as a major factor of our lives. Even religion has changed, and drastically, mostly to keep up with the times. Marriage has to change as well, and this allegedly radical change of including gays in marriage is the most likely change to save it.

No, marriage-lite won't go away overnight if gays are granted the right to marry. It will, however, lose the majority of its momentum. Heterosexuals will no longer be able to say 'Give these people equal rights! And on the subject of equality, give me the same rights, because marriage is too much work.' They will have to fess up to the fact that though they themselves do not want the social expectations of marriage, they do want the legal benefits. And that stance isn't nearly as legitimate as equality.

So by denying gays the right to marry each other, you strengthen marriage's opposition. By allowing gays to marry, you weaken said opposition. Take away the main drive behind a movement, and it will lose significant force, even though it doesn't immediately dry up and blow away.

And one last thing. How is it we're debating gay marriage itself when the original topic of the thread is how being anti-gay-marriage is being less than a model Christian?

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Llandygai

Given that context, then, how do you think the Word of God would have been primarily distributed? Oral transmission? I understand that the use of songs to transmit history has been a tactic in some cultures.

In the Levant, oral tradition, especially that which is sung, is rather strong. Hence the Poetical OT Books etc.

Quote:

That said, do you have any idea what intent God would have for us in our times, where literacy is generally much higher? The scriptures seem to indicate that their words are intended to be conveyed over the course of centuries. It makes sense that God would know that, and that He would also know that a literate people would eventually receive His word.

I am neither conversed enough with modern scripture nor I'm a part of the Christian religion, so I don't think I can sit here and make judgements on what God wants you to do. The Bible I can talk about. God's motives? Sure, through bible interpretation. Necessarily coverting them to modern idiosyncresies? Not so much.

Quote:

Do you think that we're simply expected to do all the study we can, before we have a sound understanding of the scriptures?

Seek and you will find is definitely coming to mind. Basically, the more you seek, the more you're likely to find.

Quote:

[Edit] Celebin: you mentioned Romans 1 and Bacchic rites. Given your understanding of both of those, I'm interested in your interpretation of that scriptures, since you said that I might think twice about that passage as a reference to homosexuality if I knew those things.

Any help?

Romans 1 gives almost a run down of things that are going to happen in Bacchic rites: Strange things being done to animals, the image of God being something else, sexual congress of odd types and the like. All to tell you not to do those. Nevermind that it's going to lead to a discussion as to the nature of things. Basically, we're going to have to ponder whether or not God is a tricky b*****d. The big prohibition in Romans is people doing things against phusis (nature, physis if you want me to anglicise it the way most other people do. I render my upsilons as u). Ok, now tell me, homosexuality, is it natural?

The big pro-gay argument that is going to arise out of Romans is that what it's saying is that for a heterosexual man to defy his nature and lay with another man is unnatural, because it's not in their phusis to sleep with men, nevermind that they're doing this act as a part of the rites of another God.

Does it really say that? Well, it doesn't not say that. If we're going to assume things about God's knowledge, like for instance, God realises that other species engage in homosexual acts quite naturally, so homosexuality really isn't all that against phusis.

Then we need to get into a cultural point of view. To put it, well, bluntly, it's not ok to take it up the a** in this time period. Giving it? That's generally fine from a Greco-Roman standpoint, but getting it is dishonourable. I know more about the Indo-European mindset than I do about the Semitic/Afro-Asiatic one, and the thoughts that giving a**l sex is ok but receiving it isn't is an Indo-European mindset for sure, but it's either pretty syncretic at this point or already prevalent in Afro-Asiatic cultures. Also, the word atimia is used later. This basically means dishonourable. If you're looking for the dishonourable act in question, passive a**l sex is probably it.

Course, then we get into the question of culture shift. When passive a**l sex isn't dishonourable, do we need to worry about this prohibition anymore?

That was a lot, but basically, if you know Mediterranean culture at the time Romans was written, Romans isn't so clearly telling us being gay is wrong. It could be telling us Bacchic rites are wrong, or taking it up the a** is wrong, or taking it up the a** in dishonourable contexts is wrong, or disobeying phusis is wrong, none of which have to mean the same thing as homosexuality is sinful.

[silverstoned]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm not for gay marriage. But I accept it and I don't think it's right to judge others and bash them.

[Llandygai]

Agreed on the quotation thing. I was thinking about that, too, this morning. I figured we were reaching critical mass for post length, and that pretty soon, we'd have to step back and pare things down.

I'll...try... to be a bit more concise. wink

Once again, though, I'm out of time, for the day, so... going to have to hit this one tomorrow, methinks.

Celeblin-- let's see what of yours I can answer.

Ah, so I was right about oral traditions, particularly in the form of song. That's really not a surprising technique, since the very nature of music and attached lyrics really do work well with memory.

About God's intent, I understand where you're coming from; with you not being Christian, that makes sense. I wouldn't try to make any kind of proclamations about Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc, myself, since I know so little of those faiths (which is really kind of sad).

The "seek and find" thing works for me. Heck, Christ said that same thing in the New Testament.

You have an interesting take on Romans 1, so thanks for sharing. I really didn't have any context of Bacchic rites. That said, I was actually rather stunned to see how well it applies to our own times, when I read it again, just a few weeks ago, and then again the other morning.

As for homosexuality being "natural," first, tell me what you consider "natural," so I can make sure I know where you're coming from.

In my definition, well, yes and no. For the "yes" side, it uses natural bodily components and natural libidos. If you subscribe to an immutable, pre-wired sexuality (which I do not think is the general case), then you could use that stance to argue that people with same-sex attraction are simply acting out their natural tendencies.

For the "no" side, it's a biological imperative that sexual intercourse is the natural means of reproduction, and life is naturally geared toward self-propagation. So among sexual creatures, sexual intercourse would naturally be between sexes, since same-sex intercourse would do nothing to further the cause of the species.

As to why some animals seem to exhibit homosexual behaviour? *Shrugs* I can only guess. It could do with the fact that genitalia are loaded with nerve endings, and that sexual activities feel good regardless gender issues. I suspect it probably feels good for animals as well, and unless we could somehow demonstrate that animals have moral constraints, as we humans do, I don't see any reason why an animal would choose not to experience that pleasure.

All the same, animal mating in sexually reproducing animals--no matter their other sexual activities--is still a bi-gender act.

I believe the "no" answer carries more weight, personally. *Shrugs*

As for God being tricky? I believe that the devil is a master trickster and an expert counterfeiter. I believe that the devil is the arch enemy of God, and, as such, will do anything to shame and discredit God. A simple way to do that is to get people to misunderstand God--even to impersonate Him, and then do terrible things--and let it go naturally from there.

As for the homosexual rites being geared toward the worship of another God, well, then you get into a question of "which god(s) should be worshiped," or does it even matter? If you go with the "One True God" notion, then the logic would follow that worship of other gods would likely be an offense in the sight of God, and any rites aimed at those other gods would also be offensive, and likely punishable.

I'm out of time, so I'll have to get back to the rest of this later.

[error-dot-tar]

Llandygai

All the same, animal mating in sexually reproducing animals--no matter their other sexual activities--is still a bi-gender act.

What of species in which homosexual activities actually increases fertility?

Quote:

Being female, the C. uniparens lizard lacks a p***s; in fact, she lacks two penises, the proper number for male lizards. She also lacks testes. So there is no actual sexual penetration or transfer of sperm — hence the term "pseudocopulation." Genetically speaking, the offspring are parented only by the female who lays the eggs, so it's a case of parthenogenesis (virgin birth, in other words). What, then, is the point of the sexual encounter? Is it just an instinctual or atavistic response — an ancestral behavior that the new, all-female species hasn't got around to eliminating?

According to Crews, it does have a function. Early in his study of the all-female lizard, he and his students found that lesbian sex increases the animals' fertility. Lizards that were prevented from engaging in female-female sex laid eggs less often and laid fewer eggs on each occasion. In a wide variety of species, including lizards, copulation is known to trigger reflexes that promote egg development or ovulation, and this function is preserved in C. uniparens.

Crews' more recent work has involved studying the molecular and genetic mechanisms that regulate sexual behavior in the lesbian lizards. For example, he has shown that "male" behavior, which in humans is largely dependent on testosterone, is triggered by progesterone in the lizards. The drop in estrogen and rise in progesterone at ovulation causes the switch in sexual behavior.

http://www.nerve.com/Regulars/ScienceOfSex/09-19-00/09-19-00.asp

[JesusOnOccasions]

This is just pure laziness on my part, I read alot of what you guys debated on. Very honestly (I don't know if someone said this already) I think marriage is strictly a emotional and lawful agreement. *Cough* Hence the whole signing of the certificates and if they get sick of each other they go to COURT, no longer the church, so why can't a homosexual couple wed? There is nothing, that i know of, in the Bible (if you reference that) that says two men or women can't wed... So i guess it doesnt make you a bad christian... I bet you guys already said all of this though but someone at the top of this page (unless it went to the next page already) said that there was something in the Constitution, you missed what i was thinking, it says that all men are equal, and the amendments throw in women too... I feel so dumb at the moment ....

[Llandygai]

error-dot-tar

Llandygai

All the same, animal mating in sexually reproducing animals--no matter their other sexual activities--is still a bi-gender act.

What of species in which homosexual activities actually increases fertility?

I find it somewhat amusing that you edit a word in your quote, and then go on to use the plural form of that. Irrelevant to the discussion, sure, but... funny all the same.

Anyway, what about them? Are we lizards, using the morality of lizards?

Some animals eat their young. And their mates. Why don't we try that, too?

The bottom line is this: human being have morals and societal requirements/expectations that are independent of what other animal species do. Our morality isn't tied to the practices of other species.

JesusOnOccasions

This is just pure laziness on my part, I read alot of what you guys debated on. Very honestly (I don't know if someone said this already) I think marriage is strictly a emotional and lawful agreement. *Cough* Hence the whole signing of the certificates and if they get sick of each other they go to COURT, no longer the church, so why can't a homosexual couple wed?

That's one of my chief contentions, here: that marriage was instituted as more than just an emotional/lawful agreement. It has been slowly, carefully modified over time to the present state, where that's what many people think it is--exactly what you said, J.O.C.

If that's all marriage is, then yes, it does seem ludicrous to deny homosexual marriage.

JesusOnOccasions

There is nothing, that i know of, in the Bible (if you reference that) that says two men or women can't wed...

So you're implying that unless something is specifically stated in the Bible that it's "okay"? Or am I understanding you wrong?

JesusOnOccasions

So i guess it doesnt make you a bad christian... I bet you guys already said all of this though but someone at the top of this page (unless it went to the next page already) said that there was something in the Constitution, you missed what i was thinking, it says that all men are equal, and the amendments throw in women too... I feel so dumb at the moment ....

Why do you feel dumb?



On a side note, I agree with Silverstoned's statement.


Anyway... back to the discussion with Celeblin and Scars. smile

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Llandygai

error-dot-tar

Llandygai

All the same, animal mating in sexually reproducing animals--no matter their other sexual activities--is still a bi-gender act.

What of species in which homosexual activities actually increases fertility?

I find it somewhat amusing that you edit a word in your quote, and then go on to use the plural form of that. Irrelevant to the discussion, sure, but... funny all the same.

Anyway, what about them? Are we lizards, using the morality of lizards?

Some animals eat their young. And their mates. Why don't we try that, too?

The bottom line is this: human being have morals and societal requirements/expectations that are independent of what other animal species do. Our morality isn't tied to the practices of other species.

What part of phusis contains morality exactly?

Phusis generally means what is natural for the body. If we now know homosexuality is natural for the body, why does it break phusis?

It's the rub really. The condemnation in Romans talks far less morality than it does defying nature.