NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?

Probably the fact that the Jewish people didn't write down something that said "You shall not lick another's foot. Such is an abomination" and claim that it was God's law.

Foot fetishes are not mentioned in the Bible.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?

What the others said, + homosexuality is more common.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?
thank you for reminding me

driving home from school today i saw on a church sign, the oens they put oput by the road because htye have to broadcast to everyone wth they are doing every day, "homosexuality is a sin that god hates"

i thought to myself "why the hell didnt they jsut say 'God hates gays' " it wouldve been mroe blatantly obvious they are homophobic bigots and much more trendy

thank you for reminding me

driving home from school today i saw on a church sign, the oens they put oput by the road because htye have to broadcast to everyone wth they are doing every day, "homosexuality is a sin that god hates"

i thought to myself "why the hell didnt they jsut say 'God hates gays' " it wouldve been mroe blatantly obvious they are homophobic bigots and much more trendy
Hate the sin love the sinner :)

(Better then saying all the fags will rot in hell...)

Some churches might as well have signs saying "God hates everyone who doesn't go to our church. In fact he probably hates most of the people who do attend. So stop flaunting your ankles, sinners!"

thank you for reminding me

driving home from school today i saw on a church sign, the oens they put oput by the road because htye have to broadcast to everyone wth they are doing every day, "homosexuality is a sin that god hates"

i thought to myself "why the hell didnt they jsut say 'God hates gays' " it wouldve been mroe blatantly obvious they are homophobic bigots and much more trendy

During the period covered by the Old Testament, Judaic society was very authoritarian and patriarchic ( sp? ). Having many children, sons in particular, was seen as a blessing from God since the larger your tribe, the more resources you had access to and the easier it was to defend them. Homosexuality was seen as a threat because it called into question both the patriarchic and child-bearing foundations of society at the time.

What the others said, + homosexuality is more common.

True, but given the amount of condemnation of homosexuals, it doesn't make any sense. The fact that foot fetishists aren't mentioned in the Bible shifts the question onto the writers of the Bible/God himself.

During the period covered by the Old Testament, Judaic society was very authoritarian and patriarchic ( sp? ). Having many children, sons in particular, was seen as a blessing from God since the larger your tribe, the more resources you had access to and the easier it was to defend them. Homosexuality was seen as a threat because it called into question both the patriarchic and child-bearing foundations of society at the time.
which has what to do with the price of tea in china?

C'mon... Really, this is just a solid wedge issue that the Republicans are getting their base whipped up about. It'll calm down in about a month and a half, and then flare up again next election cycle.

True, but given the amount of condemnation of homosexuals, it doesn't make any sense. The fact that foot fetishists aren't mentioned in the Bible shifts the question onto the writers of the Bible/God himself.

Also, foot fetishes aren't as outwardly apparent. You can't tell what people do behind closed doors, but you can tell if a man is walking around holding hands with other men.

Ahh, there's a certain something in a man's eye which gives a clear indication of foot fetish.

Hate the sin love the sinner :)

(Better then saying all the fags will rot in hell...)
Doesn't seem to stop Fred Phelps. I'd post a link, but I don't want the fucker getting any traffic from me.

Hmmmm the bible specifically states that homosexuality is considered a sin (Actually the bible only says actually doing it is, being attracted to the same gender in itself if you never have any sort of physical thing going on technically isn't a sin, strictly speaking, unless you go with that whole thought = sin thing).

About fetishes and BDSM, I don't know if they are mentioned in the bible, but if they are I certainly don't know of it. I'm sure if you could find a passage in the bible that forbids it, then Christians WOULD oppose it.

Other htan that though, homosexuality is more publisized. People are openly trying to get homosexuality accepted into the mainstream, whereas this is not the case with fetishes and BDSM types, so I suppose Christians feel that homosexuality is more important to deal with.

Other than that, I can't really say, not being Christian myself...

ooh letila its none of the above

there is a certain perverse obsession involved in the whole anti-homosexuality thing. you'll note that its much more about gay men than about lesbians.

the whole "nasty stuff they do" thing stays in their mind and they cant stop thinking about it.

i guess the thought of licking feet (or whatever) just doesnt do the same thing for them.

which has what to do with the price of tea in china?

He's baaaaccck! Heh! Stalker! :P

I was under the impression we were discussing homosexuality, not "tea in China." Hmm.

He's baaaaccck! Heh! Stalker! :P

I was under the impression we were discussing homosexuality, not "tea in China." Hmm.
and i was under the impression you were some one who has a bajillion degrees, which you stated. you are obviously delusional dr hobo, because i doubt some one with degrees in everything would be using emoticons and "1337" speak

the questioner who opened this thread missed the one obvious component present in homosexual acts yet not necessarily in any fetish including masochism. Sex is meant for the union of a man and a woman, as long as everything goes to the right places, they're free to enjoy the act. In homosexual intercourse things cannot go to the right place, because the right place isn't there.

So Christians, in general, oppose anal sex?

the questioner who opened this thread missed the one obvious component present in homosexual acts yet not necessarily in any fetish including masochism. Sex is meant for the union of a man and a woman, as long as everything goes to the right places, they're free to enjoy the act. In homosexual intercourse things cannot go to the right place, because the right place isn't there.

So a man can't put his penis in another man's anus, even though it feels good to both men, because God said so, but God is ok with a woman beating a man with a whip and sticking something up his anus during sex since it is a man and a woman doing it.

Hmmmm the bible specifically states that homosexuality is considered a sin (Actually the bible only says actually doing it is, being attracted to the same gender in itself if you never have any sort of physical thing going on technically isn't a sin, strictly speaking, unless you go with that whole thought = sin thing).

About fetishes and BDSM, I don't know if they are mentioned in the bible, but if they are I certainly don't know of it. I'm sure if you could find a passage in the bible that forbids it, then Christians WOULD oppose it.

Other htan that though, homosexuality is more publisized. People are openly trying to get homosexuality accepted into the mainstream, whereas this is not the case with fetishes and BDSM types, so I suppose Christians feel that homosexuality is more important to deal with.

Other than that, I can't really say, not being Christian myself...

the Bible also says that wearing a fabric woven of two materials is a sin...cotton/poly blends? disobeying your parents is a sin worthy of stoning, and other such nonsense is also present in Leviticus, which is where most of the LAW OF GOD stuff comes in.

The real question is not why are the right-wingers not attacking the foot fetishests etc., but why aren't they going after women in read, and those who disobey their parents? that's what i want to know!

and i was under the impression you were some one who has a bajillion degrees, which you stated. you are obviously delusional dr hobo, because i doubt some one with degrees in everything would be using emoticons and "1337" speak

Would you prefer I was all somber and sober, like you? ROFLMAO!

Here is my personal page on the site I created. Note the picture and then come back and tell me how old I am. I really would love to know! :D

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html

So a man can't put his penis in another man's anus, even though it feels good to both men, because God said so, but God is ok with a woman beating a man with a whip and sticking something up his anus during sex since it is a man and a woman doing it.

ROFLMAO!!! Um ... I don't THINK so! LOL!

Would you prefer I was all somber and sober, like you? ROFLMAO!

Here is my personal page on the site I created. Note the picture and then come back and tell me how old I am. I really would love to know! :D

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html
You squinted :)

You squinted :)

LOL! Um ... can't say the sun was in my eyes, can I? Heh!

...getting their base whipped up about
*puts on Cats voice*
All your base are belong to church!

Probably the fact that the Jewish people didn't write down something that said "You shall not lick another's foot. Such is an abomination" and claim that it was God's law.
I'd pretty much have to go with this.
Though, I bet if you looked into Sodom and Gamora you might find some evidence of such practices...Most people don't look that deeply, though.

Would you prefer I was all somber and sober, like you? ROFLMAO!

Here is my personal page on the site I created. Note the picture and then come back and tell me how old I am. I really would love to know! :D

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html
pssh, i'm an astronaut

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/portraits/husband.jpg

So a man can't put his penis in another man's anus, even though it feels good to both men, because God said so, but God is ok with a woman beating a man with a whip and sticking something up his anus during sex since it is a man and a woman doing it.

No, they're pretty much fruitloops too...but hell, whatever floats yer boat

the Bible also says that wearing a fabric woven of two materials is a sin...cotton/poly blends? disobeying your parents is a sin worthy of stoning, and other such nonsense is also present in Leviticus, which is where most of the LAW OF GOD stuff comes in.

The real question is not why are the right-wingers not attacking the foot fetishests etc., but why aren't they going after women in read, and those who disobey their parents? that's what i want to know!

They should be lol, if they were good proper Christians.

But of course, most of them conform to what's socially acceptable nowadays.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?

Foot fetishists and BDSM'ers aren't clamoring for "equal rights," and, for the most part, don't loudly proclaim that everyone ought to accept their fetishes as part of natural, normal human sexuality.

You can well bet that your average fundamentalist finds these sexual fetishes positively disturbing, but why waste political energy on it when it's not a political issue?

Foot fetishists and BDSM'ers aren't clamoring for "equal rights," and, for the most part, don't loudly proclaim that everyone ought to accept their fetishes as part of natural, normal human sexuality.

You can well bet that your average fundamentalist finds these sexual fetishes positively disturbing, but why waste political energy on it when it's not a political issue?
Well, the average foot fetishist or BDSM--assuming they're hetero--doesn't lack for civil rights. Homosexuals aren't generally clamoring--anymore since Lawrence v Texas--for the right to practice their particular form of sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. They're asking for the right to marry and take part in the other benefits provided by the federal government to couples who do so. This isn't even comparing apples to oranges. This is comparing apples to the fruit of the national animal of Zontar, fourth planet in the Klaatuu nebula.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?


OOOOO!!!! WHat I don't get is they always say "gays are child molestors" suually while citing a study done by a certain psychiatrist who was censured by his colleagues for manipulating data and/or the normalziation of homosexuality will enable pedophiles to attain similar acceptance. A quick search on the web of religious sites will get you riems of anti-gay rhetoric/hysteria/psychoses as well as some groups such as NARTH who actually offer Christian healing for the affliction of homosexuality. Now what I do not get is I see no Christian "faith healing" group offering such "salvation" for pedophiles, rapists, etc.

It's really quite... hilarious.

Well, the average foot fetishist or BDSM--assuming they're hetero--doesn't lack for civil rights. Homosexuals aren't generally clamoring--anymore since Lawrence v Texas--for the right to practice their particular form of sexuality in the privacy of their own homes.

Then everyone ought to be happy. (And, at any rate, anti-sodomy laws were technically applicable to the same action between a man and a woman, I believe---this application just wasn't enforced.)

They're asking for the right to marry and take part in the other benefits provided by the federal government to couples who do so. This isn't even comparing apples to oranges. This is comparing apples to the fruit of the national animal of Zontar, fourth planet in the Klaatuu nebula.

They have the right to marry and receive the legal benefits that go with it. As I'm sure you've heard ten thousand times before, what they are trying to do now is to REDEFINE marriage. No one is denied the right to marry on the basis of his sexual orientation; however, a man's relationship with another man, or a woman's relationship with another woman, will not be recognized as the marriages they aren't, regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Homosexuals already have equal rights.

A quick search on the web of religious sites will get you riems of anti-gay rhetoric/hysteria/psychoses as well as some groups such as NARTH who actually offer Christian healing for the affliction of homosexuality. Now what I do not get is I see no Christian "faith healing" group offering such "salvation" for pedophiles, rapists, etc.

First of all, NARTH is not a "faith healing" group, it is a psycho-therapy group. "Faith healing" is a particular doctrinal oddity that claims that if one has enough faith, one can either heal others or be healed. Christian organizations who try to help Christians struggling with sexual issues usually do NOT advocate "faith healing." Second, most Christian ministries geared toward homosexuals ALSO provide services for people struggling with other areas of their sexual lives, including pornography and adultery. Pedophilia, assuming it hasn't been acted upon, would be dealt with. But if you're talking about convicted pedophiles and rapists, then you'll have to look at prison ministries.

~edit~
They have the right to marry and receive the legal benefits that go with it.

Where? What benefits? Health coverage? Not in my state, they don't.

As I'm sure you've heard ten thousand times before, what they are trying to do now is to REDEFINE marriage. No one is denied the right to marry on the basis of his sexual orientation; however, a man's relationship with another man, or a woman's relationship with another woman, will not be recognized as the marriages they aren't, regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Homosexuals already have equal rights.

Bullshit. Equal rights are not special rights. If a couple consisting of a male and female can unify and receive government and state benefits (such as sharing health care, etc.), than a couple consisting of two people of the same gender should receive those benefits as well. Call it what you will, the current definition of marriage comes from a RELIGIOUS ideal. Since when has the United States Constitution supported the use of doctrine to determine public policy?

pssh, i'm an astronaut

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/portraits/husband.jpg

I'm an out of work porn star with AIDS....

Me!! (http://www.collegejokes.com/archive/02202000/lecturehall/JohnHolmes1.gif)

intolerance is the mark of the truly devout.

it becomes nessecary to support falling idols from demise, and to give cause to outdated imperialistic dogma.

There is nothing wrong with favouring the foot over other body parts, especially sexually.

Mmm...feet.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?

Ever heard of flagellants?

intolerance is the mark of the truly devout.

it becomes nessecary to support falling idols from demise, and to give cause to outdated imperialistic dogma.

Careful... I know a lot of devout PAGANS who practice tolerance. Just because someone is devout doesn't mean they're intolerant.

As a "BDSM type" I am frankly offended by your blatent attempt to whip up condemnation of my lifestyle. ;)

There is nothing wrong with favouring the foot over other body parts, especially sexually.

Mmm...feet.

LOL! Just make sure you wash 'em first! :D

Then everyone ought to be happy. (And, at any rate, anti-sodomy laws were technically applicable to the same action between a man and a woman, I believe---this application just wasn't enforced.)Depends on the specific law. The main reason the Texas law was overturned was precisely because is was gay-specific, but the total opinion noted that the government has no business in the private sex lives of consenting adults.

They have the right to marry and receive the legal benefits that go with it. As I'm sure you've heard ten thousand times before, what they are trying to do now is to REDEFINE marriage. No one is denied the right to marry on the basis of his sexual orientation; however, a man's relationship with another man, or a woman's relationship with another woman, will not be recognized as the marriages they aren't, regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Homosexuals already have equal rights.
That's a specious argument and you know it. The issue is that two people who wish to marry each other--whether for love or for any other reason--are denied the ability to do so simply because they happen to be of the same sex. And so what if it means we expand the definition of marriage? It's not as if the definition has been static throughout history, after all. It has undergone many incarnations and will no doubt undergo many more. "Because we don't do it that way now" is hardly a logical reason to consider changing it.

Interesting note: in some of the nations we took America away rom, same-gender marriage was practiced from time to time.

As a "BDSM type" I am frankly offended by your blatent attempt to whip up condemnation of my lifestyle. ;)

Ah but if you were a submissive masochist then surely the more you're persecuted the better it is?
:P

Ah but if you were a submissive masochist then surely the more you're persecuted the better it is?
:P

Only if it's consentual. :cool:

They have the right to marry and receive the legal benefits that go with it. As I'm sure you've heard ten thousand times before, what they are trying to do now is to REDEFINE marriage. No one is denied the right to marry on the basis of his sexual orientation; however, a man's relationship with another man, or a woman's relationship with another woman, will not be recognized as the marriages they aren't, regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Homosexuals already have equal rights.

Non-sequitur. Marriage licenses are not granted to individuals, they are granted to couples. Homosexual couples quite clearly denied the right to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation.

First of all, NARTH is not a "faith healing" group, it is a psycho-therapy group. "Faith healing" is a particular doctrinal oddity that claims that if one has enough faith, one can either heal others or be healed. Christian organizations who try to help Christians struggling with sexual issues usually do NOT advocate "faith healing." Second, most Christian ministries geared toward homosexuals ALSO provide services for people struggling with other areas of their sexual lives, including pornography and adultery. Pedophilia, assuming it hasn't been acted upon, would be dealt with. But if you're talking about convicted pedophiles and rapists, then you'll have to look at prison ministries.

NARTH not a faith healing group??? So this explains the relationship they have with various Christian pro-family groups and why their 'treatment' revolves around religious conditioning? The Director of NARTH, Dr. J. Satinover is a devout right wing/anti-liberal conservative Christian too I might add and his scientific POV or lack thereof is heavily biased. This fellow wrote a book not long ago about homosexuality also citing the falsified study I mentioned earlier adn not to mention the book itself stunk with religiosity, falsities and hype. Sorry, try again, but NARTH IS a faith helaing group as well as utterly fraudulent.

the fact they treat something no mainstream professional considers to be illness or even treatable or ethical to do so says a lot

I wonder if maybe Christian fundamentalists are secretly masochistic. Think about it, they're so authoritarian and seem to want to be punished.

Maybe, Just maybe, Some guy wanted to boink another guy and couldn't deal with the Idea. Then he wrote his little part af the bible and now homosexuality is a Sin: punishable by God (sado-masochistic, and dominate submissive issues here!)

Meh.

Find a girl or boy friend. Find a mate and leave everyone else alone!

Where? What benefits? Health coverage? Not in my state, they don't.

Yes, they do, if they're involved in a MARRIAGE.

Bullshit. Equal rights are not special rights. If a couple consisting of a male and female can unify and receive government and state benefits (such as sharing health care, etc.), than a couple consisting of two people of the same gender should receive those benefits as well.

Why? Unless you think sex (no, not GENDER, but biological SEX) is unreal, then a couple consisting of a man and a man, or of a woman and a woman is inherently different from one consisting of a man and a woman. Only the third one can constitute a marriage.

Call it what you will, the current definition of marriage comes from a RELIGIOUS ideal. Since when has the United States Constitution supported the use of doctrine to determine public policy?

The whole ethical philosophy of individual rights is rooted in religious principle. But now that you've said it, the Constitution nowhere calls for a separation of RELIGION from the state, but rather a separation of RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT (i.e., organized churches) from the state.

That's a specious argument and you know it. The issue is that two people who wish to marry each other--whether for love or for any other reason--are denied the ability to do so simply because they happen to be of the same sex.

Simply because they happen to be of the same sex? Simply? For crying out loud! As if there were no real differences between the male sex and the female sex!

And so what if it means we expand the definition of marriage? It's not as if the definition has been static throughout history, after all. It has undergone many incarnations and will no doubt undergo many more. "Because we don't do it that way now" is hardly a logical reason to consider changing it.

No, the definition has NOT changed. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now, in many places and times men have been allowed to engage in more than one marriage at a time (polygyny), and in some places and times women have been allowed engage in more than one marriage at a time (polyandry). Incest, also, has frequently been permitted (to varying degrees). And, as a result of longer lifespans and longer childhoods, the age at which it is considered appropriate to marry (in our culture, at any rate) has also gone up. But in EVERY ONE of these example, it always still involved a man and a woman. What you and everyone in support of extending the definition of marriage to cover homosexual couples have to prove is any compelling reason to do so. I see no very compelling reason, frankly; certainly not any LOGICAL one. The most compelling reason, and it's not one I find very compelling at all, is that they LOVE one another, but this is clearly an emotional, not a logical, argument. It does not explain why they should receive any sanction or benefit from the state.

Non-sequitur. Marriage licenses are not granted to individuals, they are granted to couples. Homosexual couples quite clearly denied the right to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Homosexual couples don't CONSTITUTE a marriage. Yours is the real non sequitur.

EDIT: Figured I might as well add some examples to further illustrate my point:

1) A straight man and his straight male friend apply for a marriage license. DENIED.
2) A straight woman and her straight female friend apply for a marriage license. DENIED.
3) A gay man and a gay woman apply for a marriage license. GRANTED.

So, discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation? Nope, not at all.

NARTH not a faith healing group???

No, it is not. Did you bother to pay attention to my correction of your usage of the term, "faith healing"? Here it is again for your perusal:

"Faith healing" is a particular doctrinal oddity that claims that if one has enough faith, one can either heal others or be healed.

NARTH advocates no such doctrine, and the fact that it makes use of psychotherapy is proof positive that they are not "faith healers."

So this explains the relationship they have with various Christian pro-family groups and why their 'treatment' revolves around religious conditioning? The Director of NARTH, Dr. J. Satinover is a devout right wing/anti-liberal conservative Christian too I might add and his scientific POV or lack thereof is heavily biased. This fellow wrote a book not long ago about homosexuality also citing the falsified study I mentioned earlier adn not to mention the book itself stunk with religiosity, falsities and hype. Sorry, try again, but NARTH IS a faith helaing group as well as utterly fraudulent.

the fact they treat something no mainstream professional considers to be illness or even treatable or ethical to do so says a lot

It says a lot about mainstream professionals. But I could care less about NARTH. I think psychotherapy is bunk.

Ah ya, the deeply religious performing therapy for something they insist is pathology but the civilized thinks otherwise. I'm sorry that isn't faith healing per se, I think it's called nutjobbery. :D

What does a goverment have to gain from not allowing gay marriage?

Votes.

What does a goverment have to gain from not allowing gay marriage?
Money. The tax benefits granted to married couples along with the exemption to the inheritance tax and other such benefits would have to be granted to homosexual couples if they married. Terefore it would mean less money in the cofers of the government.

And this is precisely the logical reason why Gay couples should marry that Ordon was looking for. The fact the homosexual couples are denied these benefits is discrimination based on sexual orientation and should not be tolerated.

Money. The tax benefits granted to married couples along with the exemption to the inheritance tax and other such benefits would have to be granted to homosexual couples if they married. Terefore it would mean less money in the cofers of the government.

So why do they allow infertile couples to marry? Or couples who do not wish to have children?

So why do they allow infertile couples to marry? Or couples who do not wish to have children?
Good question! I'd like to see the justification behind why the can marry and not the Gays.

For the record, I'm not sure male-male homosexual sex is ever called a "sin" in the Bible. It *is* called an "abomination", but so is "any thing that swims in the sea yet has not fins or scales", along with many, many other things.

Careful... I know a lot of devout PAGANS who practice tolerance. Just because someone is devout doesn't mean they're intolerant.
And I know a few tolerant yet devout Christians. In fact, I'd say they're more devout than the hate-spewing ones.
No, the definition has NOT changed. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

Nope, in many places and times, it was perfectly acceptable for a marriage to consist solely of men or solely of women. It just so happens that few if any such cultures are currently dominant in any first- or second-world nations, so you don't hear about them all that much.

Figured I might as well add some examples to further illustrate my point:

1) A straight man and his straight male friend apply for a marriage license. DENIED.
2) A straight woman and her straight female friend apply for a marriage license. DENIED.
3) A gay man and a gay woman apply for a marriage license. GRANTED.

So, discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation? Nope, not at all.

Why would 1 and 2 even happen? I mean, under what circumstances would people even think to do that? Meanwhile, what good reason does 3 have to happen? Sure, it's possible, but why would anybody actually want to do any of that?

What you and everyone in support of extending the definition of marriage to cover homosexual couples have to prove is any compelling reason to do so. I see no very compelling reason, frankly; certainly not any LOGICAL one. The most compelling reason, and it's not one I find very compelling at all, is that they LOVE one another, but this is clearly an emotional, not a logical, argument. It does not explain why they should receive any sanction or benefit from the state.

Now, what you've done here is pretty interesting. Just who exactly is required to prove their position here? The people in favor of extending the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, or the people in favor of upholding the status quo?

Suppose for a moment that you had to prove your position, Ordon. Could you give a LOGICAL reason that homosexuals can't get married? Is there any reason that heterosexuals should get married except because they LOVE each other? Wait, I've got one: Making babies. Well, what about infertile heterosexuals? Why should they be allowed to get married?

A lot of Ordon's arguments look good until you think about them, and they are the arguments typically used to defend this position. They seem pretty flimsy to me, though. Ultimately, the argument seems to be that things shouldn't change because there's no economic benefit to society at large if they do change.

I think it would help if marriage as a legal state were simply abolished. Then, everyone really would have equal rights. If you can get a church to perform the ceremony, then you're married, and it doesn't matter if you have five men, seven women, a dog, and a duck.

did anyone else notice that on page 4, Orden quoted himself and then argued with himself over it? Bizarre.
The only other time I've seen ppl do that are the Harry Ramps on the street after one too many Kestrels. ;)

Pardon my asking... I haven't seen the BDSM ancroym before reading this thread.

What exactly does BDSM stand for?

Simply because they happen to be of the same sex? Simply? For crying out loud! As if there were no real differences between the male sex and the female sex!
Yeah. Simply. That's what it comes down to. Homosexuality is a fact of existence, and has been for all of recorded history. There is no logical reason to discriminate against people who want to join in a consensual sexual and emotional relationship simply on the basis of their sexual preference.

No, the definition has NOT changed. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now, in many places and times men have been allowed to engage in more than one marriage at a time (polygyny), and in some places and times women have been allowed engage in more than one marriage at a time (polyandry). Incest, also, has frequently been permitted (to varying degrees). And, as a result of longer lifespans and longer childhoods, the age at which it is considered appropriate to marry (in our culture, at any rate) has also gone up. But in EVERY ONE of these example, it always still involved a man and a woman. What you and everyone in support of extending the definition of marriage to cover homosexual couples have to prove is any compelling reason to do so. I see no very compelling reason, frankly; certainly not any LOGICAL one. The most compelling reason, and it's not one I find very compelling at all, is that they LOVE one another, but this is clearly an emotional, not a logical, argument. It does not explain why they should receive any sanction or benefit from the state.
Oh, we've provided compelling reasons--you just refuse to accept them. Here's what it essentially comes down to--are homosexuals part of the human race, and if so, should they be allowed to join in the same societal customs and benefits as heterosexual humans. The answer to the first is, of course. Homosexual humans are as human genetically as heterosexual humans.

So why should they be discriminated against when it comes to their choices in society? Logically, there is no reason. Simply saying that since discrimination has existed for 3,000 years doesn't make that discrimination any more logical. Why should they receive sanction or benefit from the state? Because in the US at least, being human is what qualifies you for equal protection and equal benefit under the law of the land. The Constitution does not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, just like it doesn't discriminate based on sex, creed, or color. Humanity is the only requirement.

Don't blame gay rights activists for getting involved in this debate. If the federal government hadn't stuck its nose in years ago and offered special benefits to married heterosexual couples, the gay rights movement wouldn't have such an easy case to make right now. It's precisely because there are options and benefits open to heterosexuals that are closed to homosexuals that this is even a debate.

Pardon my asking... I haven't seen the BDSM ancroym before reading this thread.

What exactly does BDSM stand for?
BD: Bondage and Discipline
SM: Sado-Masochism

Incidently, I was googling Leviticus just now and on the first page is this site:
www.ccel.org/wwsb/Leviticus/
The writings of Leviticus - A site of Bondage, Domination, and Enforced Nudity. Which is rather apt for this thread one would think

Leviticus, chapter 18
22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus, chapter 20
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(There's also a bit about doing it with animals. That's frowned upon also)

The Bible says you can't lie (ie 'do it') with a man as you would a woman. So does this mean that as long as you make sure to only commit buggery with a man, and never with a woman, you're ok? I mean you're not 'lieth with the man as with the woman' now are you? You're sticking it in a different hole. There is a difference here. It says quite plainly in the Bible (see above text) 'as with'. Surely this means the same. Vaginal intercourse is not the same as anal intercourse. So as long as you don't do the anal thing with a woman you're not sinning.
Fundies pls explain!

BTW anyone else here who finds the word 'buggery' inherently funny?

So does this mean that as long as you make sure to only commit buggery with a man, and never with a woman, you're ok?

Or what if a homosexual couple don't have sex at all? Is it ok then?

Pardon my asking... I haven't seen the BDSM ancroym before reading this thread.

What exactly does BDSM stand for?

B&D = bondage and discipline
D/s = Dominance and submission
S&M = sadomasochism

BDSM = bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, &/or sadomasochim... and feet ;)

... and feet ;)

Just make sure you wash 'em! ICK! LOL!

Just make sure you wash 'em! ICK! LOL!

No, she washes them... best use I've found yet for that mouth of hers. ;)

Good question! I'd like to see the justification behind why the can marry and not the Gays.

Infertile couples still help to establish marriage as a social norm.

Nope, in many places and times, it was perfectly acceptable for a marriage to consist solely of men or solely of women. It just so happens that few if any such cultures are currently dominant in any first- or second-world nations, so you don't hear about them all that much.

Name those places and times, and provide ample evidence, please.

Greece doesn't count, by the way, because homosexual relationships were NEVER considered marriages.

Figured I might as well add some examples to further illustrate my point:

1) A straight man and his straight male friend apply for a marriage license. DENIED.
2) A straight woman and her straight female friend apply for a marriage license. DENIED.
3) A gay man and a gay woman apply for a marriage license. GRANTED.

So, discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation? Nope, not at all.

Why would 1 and 2 even happen? I mean, under what circumstances would people even think to do that? Meanwhile, what good reason does 3 have to happen? Sure, it's possible, but why would anybody actually want to do any of that?

For the financial and legal benefits, of course.

What you and everyone in support of extending the definition of marriage to cover homosexual couples have to prove is any compelling reason to do so. I see no very compelling reason, frankly; certainly not any LOGICAL one. The most compelling reason, and it's not one I find very compelling at all, is that they LOVE one another, but this is clearly an emotional, not a logical, argument. It does not explain why they should receive any sanction or benefit from the state.

Now, what you've done here is pretty interesting. Just who exactly is required to prove their position here? The people in favor of extending the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, or the people in favor of upholding the status quo?

Well, of course those wishing to redefine and thus to extend state benefits must prove why there is any compelling reason to do so.

Suppose for a moment that you had to prove your position, Ordon. Could you give a LOGICAL reason that homosexuals can't get married? Is there any reason that heterosexuals should get married except because they LOVE each other? Wait, I've got one: Making babies. Well, what about infertile heterosexuals? Why should they be allowed to get married?

How about the fact that marriage consists of two persons of the opposite sex? A homosexual couple CANNOT fit that definition. The ability to make babies is, of course, implied here, but then so is the natural function of the sexual organs: a man's penis was made to go into a woman's vagina, not another man's rectum (or a woman's rectum, for that matter); nor were rectums made to receive foreign objects. But why can heterosexual couples get married? Because they establish marriage as a social norm, providing an example of an appropriate intimate relationship between a man and woman.

A lot of Ordon's arguments look good until you think about them, and they are the arguments typically used to defend this position. They seem pretty flimsy to me, though. Ultimately, the argument seems to be that things shouldn't change because there's no economic benefit to society at large if they do change.

Ultimately, my argument is that state endorsement of homosexual relationships will lead to many ill moral and social effects.

Simply because they happen to be of the same sex? Simply? For crying out loud! As if there were no real differences between the male sex and the female sex!

Yeah. Simply. That's what it comes down to. Homosexuality is a fact of existence, and has been for all of recorded history. There is no logical reason to discriminate against people who want to join in a consensual sexual and emotional relationship simply on the basis of their sexual preference.

Now you're arguing a whole other thing. It is one thing for two people of the same sex to be denied a marriage license for not constituting a marriage. It is quite another for two people to be denied a marriage license because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. As I explained earlier, no one is denied marriage on the basis of his sexuality, but rather on the basis of the constitution of his relationship.

Oh, we've provided compelling reasons--you just refuse to accept them. Here's what it essentially comes down to--are homosexuals part of the human race, and if so, should they be allowed to join in the same societal customs and benefits as heterosexual humans. The answer to the first is, of course. Homosexual humans are as human genetically as heterosexual humans.

They ARE allowed to join in the same societal customs and benefits as heterosexuals. You simply refuse to engage the argument. You show me one case of a man being denied the right to MARRY based on his feelings of sexual attraction for other men. Remember that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage.

Infertile couples still help to establish marriage as a social norm.

And what purpose does this social norm have?

And what purpose does this social norm have?

The propogation of society.

Same-sex couples can fill the same purpose, Ordon. Why don't you recognize the fact that same-sex couples can and do propagate. Hell, my ex-wife is now part of a same-sex couple and my daughter lives with them.

The propogation of society.

Why does the propagation of society rely on the establishment of marriage as a social norm between a man and a woman only, and how would man/man or woman/woman marriages aversely effect this establishment?

Without adopting, a lesbian couple can still have a child...

Same-sex couples can fill the same purpose, Ordon. Why don't you recognize the fact that same-sex couples can and do propagate. Hell, my ex-wife is now part of a same-sex couple and my daughter lives with them.

So, your ex-wife's same-sex couple is 1) propogating society and/or 2) encouraging the propagation of society by establishing same-sex couples as a social norm? Seems to me that your ex-wife was propagating society when she produced a daughter with you, and that when she was married to you she was encouraging the propagation of society by establishing marriage as a social norm. Same-sex couples cannot, on their own, propagate society or encourage its propagation by establishing a proper social norm.

Why does the propagation of society rely on the establishment of marriage as a social norm between a man and a woman only

Speaking generally: Marriage provides a socially acknowledged and supported 1) outlet for sexuality and reproduction, and 2) balanced, stable, and normative environment for the raising of children.

and how would man/man or woman/woman marriages aversely effect this establishment?

By 1) entirely divorcing reproduction from the concept of sexuality and marriage, as well as 2) providing inherently distorted examples of relationships between and amongst the sexes (thus, an unbalanced and abnormal environment). These problems are inherent to same-sex relationships, but incidental to opposite-sex relationships.

Without adopting, a lesbian couple can still have a child...

Not without going outside their lesbian relationship, either by engaging in sex with a man or by going to the sperm bank.

Not without going outside their lesbian relationship, either by engaging in sex with a man or by going to the sperm bank.How they do it is irrelevant--they are propagating society. Face it, Ordon--we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, and the norms and mores of the time have evolved, and you can either evolve with them or be left behind.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?
Mainly because it is far less publiscized. The only reason they are trying to ban gay marriage is because it is against the Bible and it is the major topic. I'm sure if BDSM was a major issue they would find some bs clause like, "sexually deviant behaviour" and try to get it banned.

Face it, Ordon--we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, and the norms and mores of the time have evolved, and you can either evolve with them or be left behind.

Well, if I'm to take seriously the statements of many gay-rightsers, a plethora of ancient societies accepted and even favored homosexual relationships---in which case, the norms and mores of the times have devolved.

Well, if I'm to take seriously the statements of many gay-rightsers, a plethora of ancient societies accepted and even favored homosexual relationships---in which case, the norms and mores of the times have devolved.Or they devolved in the Christian period and are only now returning to their previously evolved state.

Or they devolved in the Christian period and are only now returning to their previously evolved state.

Touché.

At any rate, I prefer to stand on principle, even if that makes me a moral Neanderthal in your view, rather than to go with the flow simply because "the times, they are a-changin'."

Touché.

At any rate, I prefer to stand on principle, even if that makes me a moral Neanderthal in your view, rather than to go with the flow simply because "the times, they are a-changin'."Fine with me, as long as you admit that your opinion is just that--your opinion--and is not based on anything other than your personal feelings and biases rather than on logic and reasoning.

Speaking generally: Marriage provides a socially acknowledged and supported 1) outlet for sexuality and reproduction, and 2) balanced, stable, and normative environment for the raising of children.

So why are homosexual marriages not socially acknowledged and supported, unlike marriages where one of the partners is infertile or neither wants children?

By 1) entirely divorcing reproduction from the concept of sexuality and marriage, as well as 2) providing inherently distorted examples of relationships between and amongst the sexes (thus, an unbalanced and abnormal environment). These problems are inherent to same-sex relationships, but incidental to opposite-sex relationships.

1) See my above point about infertile couples.
2) Why are homosexual relationships inherently distorted?

Why don't we solve this all by Christian FUndamentalist hate anything that isn't themselves because there a bunch of facsist egotistal prrrricks *I was singing that in a high C)

Aren't straight people gross! Eww straighty! LoL I have hetrophobia cause my religion says so, it's the "Your an old tart religion!"

Why don't we solve this all by Christian FUndamentalist hate anything that isn't themselves because there a bunch of facsist egotistal prrrricks *I was singing that in a high C)

Because that is taking the easy way out and won't solve anything.

Fine with me, as long as you admit that your opinion is just that--your opinion--and is not based on anything other than your personal feelings and biases rather than on logic and reasoning.

Is yours something else?

I've not been illogical and unreasonable, but at some point my logic and reasoning has to work outward from a set of presuppositional foundations.

So why are homosexual marriages not socially acknowledged and supported, unlike marriages where one of the partners is infertile or neither wants children?

Because homosexual relationships aren't marriages and don't encourage marriages.

2) Why are homosexual relationships inherently distorted?

Because they pretend to be something equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

Is yours something else?
Sure it is. I've given logical and reasonable examples in which same-sex couples procreate and push forward stable societies by creating family units.

Because that is taking the easy way out and won't solve anything.

You honestly think there going to listening to anything you say? They don't want to hear it unless you agree. They think the sun shines out there butt, honestly I don't know why people even bother talking to them, just help children learn before they become religious and the world will be ok.

You honestly think there going to listening to anything you say? They don't want to hear it unless you agree.

This could be said of any group.

You honestly think there going to listening to anything you say? They don't want to hear it unless you agree. They think the sun shines out there butt, honestly I don't know why people even bother talking to them, just help children learn before they become religious and the world will be ok.

I'm simply trying to understand his motivations, and will not blindly assume they are simply hatred and ignorance.

Sure it is. I've given logical and reasonable examples in which same-sex couples procreate and push forward stable societies by creating family units.

And this would be incidental, rather than inherent, to same-sex relationships. Indeed, because same-sex relationships inherently distort human sexuality and are of themselves inherently incapable of propagating society, they cannot be said to be stabilizing.

Because homosexual relationships aren't marriages and don't encourage marriages.

Heterosexual relationships aren't marriage either, until the couple is wed.
I think you are arguing in a circle now, since you're telling me homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot marry.

Because they pretend to be something equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

Why are they not?

I'm a christian. A fundemantelist hard core 'I pray more often than speak to other living human beings' kinda guy.
I'm married. My wife and I engage in all manner of sexual activities with each other. I feel comfortable saying I've done some extreme things in bed.
In doing so I havent gone against anything my beliefs tell me. I dont lust after anyone, I dont violate the bonds of my marriage, and my marriage isnt any less a 'blessed union' due to our enjoying sex.
Its not a spiritual problem unless you either create a physical/emotional problem that hurts the relationship or you simply add on to the religion to make it speak against things you dont like.

And any christian who acts on hate or treats another with hate has that hatred within them as an issue that trumps anything that they may be directing that feeling toward.
Thats like being so zealous about helping someone avoid the flu that you'll try to give them a vaccine with a dull, rusty needle.

Heterosexual relationships aren't marriage either, until the couple is wed.

Yes . . .

I think you are arguing in a circle now, since you're telling me homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot marry.

Well, I've only said that explicitly since the beginning. I've practically drilled it into everyone's head that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and that no homosexual relationship can possibly fit that definition.

Why are they not?

Because men are not women and women are not men. One produces sperm and the other produces eggs. One has a penis and the other has a vagina. One has balls and the other has tits. Both are psychologically effected in different ways by different chemicals which produced these different characteristics. Is this not immanently reasonable?

Well, I've only said that explicitly since the beginning. I've practically drilled it into everyone's head that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and that no homosexual relationship can possibly fit that definition.

Yes, and your reasoning for this is because they cannot get married?
Homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot get married?

Because men are not women and women are not men. One produces sperm and the other produces eggs. One has a penis and the other has a vagina. One has balls and the other has tits. Both are psychologically effected in different ways by different chemicals which produced these different characteristics. Is this not immanently reasonable?

I am fully aware of the differences between males and females, but I asked for and explaination as to why homosexual relationships cannot be equivalent to heterosexual relationships, not a biology class.

Yes, and your reasoning for this is because they cannot get married?
Homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot get married?

No, homosexual couples cannot marry because they do not constitute a marriage. Furthermore, homosexual relationships should never be called marriages or given treatment equivalent to marriages, because they are neither marriages nor do they adequately perform the functions of marriages.

I am fully aware of the differences between males and females, but I asked for and explaination as to why homosexual relationships cannot be equivalent to heterosexual relationships, not a biology class.

Homosexual =/= heterosexual.
Therefore, homosexual relationship =/= heterosexual relationship.

Really, how plain do I have to be?

Night =/= day.
Therefore, nighttime =/= daytime.

No, homosexual couples cannot marry because they do not constitute a marriage. Furthermore, homosexual relationships should never be called marriages or given treatment equivalent to marriages, because they are neither marriages nor do they adequately perform the functions of marriages.

Once again, you are simply saying that they cannot marry because they cannot marry.

Homosexual =/= heterosexual.
Therefore, homosexual relationship =/= heterosexual relationship.

Really, how plain do I have to be?

Night =/= day.
Therefore, nighttime =/= daytime.

Again, I am quite aware of that. Yet I still fail to see what is inherent in homosexuality or homosexual relationships that makes them unfit to engage in marriage.
What is it that *all* homosexual couples lack and *all* heterosexual couples posess that determines their ability to marry, and why is this trait a requirement for marriage?

No, homosexual couples cannot marry because they do not constitute a marriage. Furthermore, homosexual relationships should never be called marriages or given treatment equivalent to marriages, because they are neither marriages nor do they adequately perform the functions of marriages.


What, so because a woman can't pump out babies for America she shouln't get married?

Once again, you are simply saying that they cannot marry because they cannot marry.

No, I'm saying that they cannot marry because they don't fit the criteria necessary to constitute a marriage. It's the difference between saying that a fish is not a human because a fish is not a human, and saying that a fish is not a human because it does not fit the criteria required to classify it as a human (one basic criterion being the presence of mammary glands).

If it is true that homosexual couples cannot constitute a marriage, then the whole argument from "rights" collapses, because they are not being denied any right.

Again, I am quite aware of that. Yet I still fail to see what is inherent in homosexuality or homosexual relationships that makes them unfit to engage in marriage. What is it that *all* homosexual couples lack and *all* heterosexual couples posess that determines their ability to marry, and why is this trait a requirement for marriage?

Shouldn't it be quite clear? ALL homosexual couples lack two persons of opposite sex, while ALL heterosexual couples possess two persons of opposite sex.

What, so because a woman can't pump out babies for America she shouln't get married?

Try again.

No, I'm saying that they cannot marry because they don't fit the criteria necessary to constitute a marriage. It's the difference between saying that a fish is not a human because a fish is not a human, and saying that a fish is not a human because it does not fit the criteria required to classify it as a human (one basic criterion being the presence of mammary glands).

If it is true that homosexual couples cannot constitute a marriage, then the whole argument from "rights" collapses, because they are not being denied any right.

So what are the criteria for marriage, and why are they criteria?

Shouldn't it be quite clear? ALL homosexual couples lack two persons of opposite sex, while ALL heterosexual couples possess two persons of opposite sex.

Why is this relevant?

So far, this is what I've gotten.

"Homosexual marrige isn't allowed."
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"
"Uhhh...why?"
"Because they're wrong"
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"

So far, this is what I've gotten.

"Homosexual marrige isn't allowed."
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"
"Uhhh...why?"
"Because they're wrong"
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"

This is what I've gotten after reading Ordon's posts, and I don't really see how you can miss such obvious statements.

Homosexual marriage is not allowed because the union of a man and man or a woman and woman does not constitute marriage because marriage is the union of a man and woman.

*Makes obvious reference*

mar·riage
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Marriage

Homosexual marriage is not allowed because the union of a man and man or a woman and woman does not constitute marriage because marriage is the union of a man and woman.

Which, once again, comes down to "homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot marry".

So what are the criteria for marriage, and why are they criteria?

Criteria: A man and a woman who are willing to live together in a committed relationship for the rest of their lives.
Reasons: Reproduction can only be achieved through the activities of a man and a woman (even the effectiveness of sperm banks requires a man and a woman). It is best for children to be raised in a stable environment, and this is best achieved when their guardians are committed to one another. Furthermore, committed, socially-affirmed, opposite-sex relationships establish and exemplify marriage as a social norm, thus ensuring the enculturation of future generations and the propagation of the society.

Why is this relevant?

It relates to what constitutes a marriage!

So far, this is what I've gotten.

"Homosexual marrige isn't allowed."
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"
"Uhhh...why?"
"Because they're wrong"
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"

The 3 main reason I have seen so far are:

1) Only a man and a woman can get married. No explaination as to the reason for this so far.

2) 2 men/2 women cannot make babies. Which is a trait not limited only to homosexual couples.

3) Homosexual marriages will destabilize society. Highly dubious, and reeks of doom-speaking to me.

Try again.
Thats your argument in it. Because we can't make babies we shouldn't marry. Or is it because "Aww well it's just not right.'

Which, once again, comes down to "homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot marry".

Wrong. Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is not concerned about the sexuality of its participants, although it is clearly more amenable to heterosexuals because it requires a man and a woman. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, do not constitute marriages.

Which, once again, comes down to "homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot marry".
Hakartopia is right, your giving a legal stand point of America, not very helpful for anyone thats not American. Do you have a universal stand point. Or just hiding behind your "Because" idea?

Thats your argument in it. Because we can't make babies we shouldn't marry. Or is it because "Aww well it's just not right.'

Maybe, my gay Jew-devil friend, you should try reading all of my posts in this thread regarding this topic. Then refute what I have said with logical, reasoned arguments.

Wrong. Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is not concerned about the sexuality of its participants, although it is clearly more amenable to heterosexuals because it requires a man and a woman. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, do not constitute marriages.

Righto right, homosexual of one gender can't marry there love of the same gender. Thats obviously what we're sayin, quit stalling.

Maybe, my gay Jew-devil friend, you should try reading all of my posts in this thread regarding this topic. Then refute what I have said with logical, reasoned arguments.

I'm jew eh...Wow, thats interesting thanks for keeping me up to date that I even had a religion darlin *mwah*.

Anywho, what I've sen you right is "They can't marry because they can't marry." You lack anyuniversal ideals. My homophobic, racsist, Nazi friend.

Criteria: A man and a woman who are willing to live together in a committed relationship for the rest of their lives.
Reasons: Reproduction can only be achieved through the activities of a man and a woman (even the effectiveness of sperm banks requires a man and a woman). It is best for children to be raised in a stable environment, and this is best achieved when their guardians are committed to one another.

If reproduction is inherent in marriage, why are infertile couples allowed to marry?

Furthermore, homosexuals are just as capable of being committed to one another as heterosexuals.

Furthermore, committed, socially-affirmed, opposite-sex relationships establish and exemplify marriage as a social norm, thus ensuring the enculturation of future generations and the propagation of the society.

Which is all fine and dandy, and a very nice point for promoting marriage, but why does this mean that homosexual marriages should not be allowed?

Lets compare marriage to baseball.
Opposite-sex marriage with the intention of procreation is major-league, and same-sex marriage is an amateur's club.
Does the excistence of the amateur's club in any way damage the excistence of major-league baseball to a point that amateur-clubs should not be allowed to call their activity baseball?

It relates to what constitutes a marriage!

My question was why the fact that both partners are of the same sex is relevant.

Why is it that Christian fundamentalists pick on homosexuals so much but almost never foot fetishists or BDSM types? You never see them demanding bare feet or whips being banned. You never hear them say "God hates masochists". It seems rather odd if you ask me. What's the reason for this inconsistancy?


You also never see foot fetishists or BDSM types demanding new rights and representation, nor do they involve themselves with actions that can be viewed as attempting to force the general populace to validate their lifestyle. Generally speaking, they don't care whether or not people like the fact that they have a specific fetish, nor do they attempt to identify themselves by how they acheive orgasm.

Criteria: A man and a woman who are willing to live together in a committed relationship for the rest of their lives.
Reasons: Reproduction can only be achieved through the activities of a man and a woman (even the effectiveness of sperm banks requires a man and a woman). It is best for children to be raised in a stable environment, and this is best achieved when their guardians are committed to one another. Furthermore, committed, socially-affirmed, opposite-sex relationships establish and exemplify marriage as a social norm, thus ensuring the enculturation of future generations and the propagation of the society.

So...why do they have to be of different sexes? Before answering, consider that the "social norm" is useless and should never be logically used in any sort of debate, because the social norm changes. Also consider that legalizing homosexual marriges isn't going to FORCE other people to become homosexual.


And that's what it is, really. Give ONE reason why homosexual couples shouldn't have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple?

Oh, and do it without saying "they can't marry."

So...why do they have to be of different sexes? Before answering, consider that the "social norm" is useless and should never be logically used in any sort of debate, because the social norm changes. Also consider that legalizing homosexual marriges isn't going to FORCE other people to become homosexual.


And that's what it is, really. Give ONE reason why homosexual couples shouldn't have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple?

Oh, and do it without saying "they can't marry."


How bout you defend why they should first?

Wrong. Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is not concerned about the sexuality of its participants, although it is clearly more amenable to heterosexuals because it requires a man and a woman. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, do not constitute marriages.

You know fully well what I meant.

So far, this is what I've gotten.

"Homosexual marrige isn't allowed."
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"
"Uhhh...why?"
"Because they're wrong"
"Why?"
"Because homosexual marrige isn't allowed"

Okay, and from the opposite side:

"Homosexual marriage should be allowed."
"There is no such thing as homosexual 'marriage.'"
"They love each other, so they should be allowed to marry."
"It doesn't matter if they love each other. They can love each other to the death, but they still don't constitute a marriage."
"Well, what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't produce children, either."
"They constitute a marriage, even if they can't live up to its fullest expression by producing children."
"Well, homosexuals can produce children, too."
"Only by going outside of their own homosexual relationship and engaging in heterosexual intercourse, or else by means of an intermediary, like a sperm bank."
"Irrelevant. They can still produce children."
"They can't establish marriage as a social norm, however. In fact, they can only distort it."
"Then why don't you let them marry? It doesn't harm you."

You also never see foot fetishists or BDSM types demanding new rights and representation, nor do they involve themselves with actions that can be viewed as attempting to force the general populace to validate their lifestyle. Generally speaking, they don't care whether or not people like the fact that they have a specific fetish, nor do they attempt to identify themselves by how they acheive orgasm.

Probably because they don't lack any rights, nor do they need to validate their lifestyle.

Hakartopia is right, your giving a legal stand point of America, not very helpful for anyone thats not American. Do you have a universal stand point. Or just hiding behind your "Because" idea?

My universal standpoint is that a marriage is a lifelong, committed union between a man and a woman.

How bout you defend why they should first?

Because they deserve the same rights as a hetrosexual couple?

If it's a good thing, and there's no reason against it...why not?

"Homosexual marriage should be allowed."
"There is no such thing as homosexual 'marriage.'"
And why is that? Remember, no saying "just because" or any variant of that.
"They love each other, so they should be allowed to marry."
"It doesn't matter if they love each other. They can love each other to the death, but they still don't constitute a marriage."
Once again, you have yet to give an actual reason based on fact as to why this is.
"Well, what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't produce children, either."
"They constitute a marriage, even if they can't live up to its fullest expression by producing children."
See above
"Well, homosexuals can produce children, too."
"Only by going outside of their own homosexual relationship and engaging in heterosexual intercourse, or else by means of an intermediary, like a sperm bank."
"Irrelevant. They can still produce children."
"They can't establish marriage as a social norm, however. In fact, they can only distort it."
What did I JUST say about the social norm? THe social norm was once "women are property." Wanna go back to that? Of course, you called someone a "gay jew-devil," so you just might.
"Then why don't you let them marry? It doesn't harm you."
No answer to that one?

My universal standpoint is that a marriage is a lifelong, committed union between a man and a woman.

And everytime we've asked why, you've given us nothing more then personal grudges and illogical arguments that have been proven incorrect time and time again.

Oh, and by the way? What does it MATTER what YOU think? Figures, you'd want to impose your morality on everyone else...

I'm jew eh...Wow, thats interesting thanks for keeping me up to date that I even had a religion darlin *mwah*.

I have no clue if you are a Jew, I just thought it'd be funny to call you a "Jew-devil" because you seem to think that I'm a Nazi.

Anywho, what I've sen you right is "They can't marry because they can't marry." You lack anyuniversal ideals. My homophobic, racsist, Nazi friend.

Did that "a fish is not a human" example completely pass everyone by?

Okay, and from the opposite side:

"Homosexual marriage should be allowed."
"There is no such thing as homosexual 'marriage.'"
"They love each other, so they should be allowed to marry."
"It doesn't matter if they love each other. They can love each other to the death, but they still don't constitute a marriage."
"Well, what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't produce children, either."
"They constitute a marriage, even if they can't live up to its fullest expression by producing children."
"Well, homosexuals can produce children, too."
"Only by going outside of their own homosexual relationship and engaging in heterosexual intercourse, or else by means of an intermediary, like a sperm bank."
"Irrelevant. They can still produce children."
"They can't establish marriage as a social norm, however. In fact, they can only distort it."
"Then why don't you let them marry? It doesn't harm you."


If the issue is simply two people expressing their love for each other in a lasting union, why is the government necessary to validate that relationship? If its only about equal rights, homosexual couples absolutely have the right to get married; those marriages simply are not recognized by the state for tax and other purposes.

So lets get to what this is really about then shall we? This is about money, pure and simple. This has nothing to do with fairness, or equality, or morality, this is about a group demanding validation for their lifestyle and money to go along with it. I'm not saying all homosexuals are proponents of gay marriage for money; I am saying they have been duped into thinking this is a bigger issue than it actually is.

No one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, period. Those marriages however do not get the same benefits and such as heterosexual marriages. So, here's something for everyone out there: Why should those benefits be extended to homosexual couples when:

It is not a relationship that can directly lead to children, which is a large part of why heterosexuals have those benefits. Heterosexual marriage is and has been the basis of society since society began. The health of this relationship overall thus has a large impact on the health of the society as a whole. Thus it is in the government's best interest to encourage and foster the health of said relationship, the most obvious way being monetarily. As the same cannot be said of homosexual relationships, what reason is there for the government to extend aid?

"Well, what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't produce children, either."
"They constitute a marriage, even if they can't live up to its fullest expression by producing children."

So reproduction is in fact irrelevant to this discussion?

If you allow one group of people to marry despite not being able to reproduce, and not allow another group, there has to be another factor in which they differ.

Which is the fact that in the first case, they are of opposite gender, and in the second of equal gender. And you still have to explain why this is relevant.

If the issue is simply two people expressing their love for each other in a lasting union, why is the government necessary to validate that relationship? If its only about equal rights, homosexual couples absolutely have the right to get married; those marriages simply are not recognized by the state for tax and other purposes.

So lets get to what this is really about then shall we? This is about money, pure and simple. This has nothing to do with fairness, or equality, or morality, this is about a group demanding validation for their lifestyle and money to go along with it. I'm not saying all homosexuals are proponents of gay marriage for money; I am saying they have been duped into thinking this is a bigger issue than it actually is.

No one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, period. Those marriages however do not get the same benefits and such as heterosexual marriages. So, here's something for everyone out there: Why should those benefits be extended to homosexual couples when:

It is not a relationship that can directly lead to children, which is a large part of why heterosexuals have those benefits. Heterosexual marriage is and has been the basis of society since society began. The health of this relationship overall thus has a large impact on the health of the society as a whole. Thus it is in the government's best interest to encourage and foster the health of said relationship, the most obvious way being monetarily. As the same cannot be said of homosexual relationships, what reason is there for the government to extend aid?
And once again I ask, with your opinion PERFECTLY in mind, why are benefits given to those families who are not able to have children?

I have no clue if you are a Jew, I just thought it'd be funny to call you a "Jew-devil" because you seem to think that I'm a Nazi.

Did that "a fish is not a human" example completely pass everyone by?
You seem to follow many Nazi traits, you agreed with that horridly rocsist Right or Left chain mail thing that was posted and I do beleive your in the same boat as TT when it comes to Jewish people. I just found it interesting since I live in a country that has one of the smallest Jewish populations in the western world.

And once again I ask, with your opinion PERFECTLY in mind, why are benefits given to those families who are not able to have children?


I stated a singular reason was that that relationship fosters the possibility of children, not the only reason. Go back and read again. And once again, you have failed to answer my question: why should special priveliges, because thats what marriage and it benefits are, be extended to homosexual couples?

I stated a singular reason was that that relationship fosters the possibility of children, not the only reason. Go back and read again. And once again, you have failed to answer my question: why should special priveliges, because thats what marriage and it benefits are, be extended to homosexual couples?

Because hetro's who can't have babies aren't seen as any less of people so neither should gay marriage. Or do you think they are? Well give me some more reasons if that is just one.

I stated a singular reason was that that relationship fosters the possibility of children, not the only reason. Go back and read again. And once again, you have failed to answer my question: why should special priveliges, because thats what marriage and it benefits are, be extended to homosexual couples?

Why should black people get the same rights as white people?

Because hetro's who can't have babies aren't seen as any less of people so neither should gay marriage. Or do you think they are? Well give me some more reasons if that is just one.


Are special rights to be extended to everyone?

If reproduction is inherent in marriage, why are infertile couples allowed to marry?

How many times must I repeat myself until you get it? This is really quite annoying. I'm sure you're far more intelligent than your grasp on my arguments has been. READ:

Furthermore, committed, socially-affirmed, opposite-sex relationships establish and exemplify marriage as a social norm, thus ensuring the enculturation of future generations and the propagation of the society.

Furthermore, homosexuals are just as capable of being committed to one another as heterosexuals.

So what? Commitment is necessary to marriage, but it's not the only criterion. I'm committed to each of my family members, but that doesn't mean I'm going to marry any of them.

Which is all fine and dandy, and a very nice point for promoting marriage, but why does this mean that homosexual marriages should not be allowed?

Homosexual unions should not be legally sanctioned because they divorce the reproductive function from marriage, distort human sexuality, and obscure the differences between the sexes.

Lets compare marriage to baseball.
Opposite-sex marriage with the intention of procreation is major-league, and same-sex marriage is an amateur's club.
Does the excistence of the amateur's club in any way damage the excistence of major-league baseball to a point that amateur-clubs should not be allowed to call their activity baseball?

False analogy. Same-sex relationships aren't marriage (how often must I explain this?). Your amateur's club is playing cricket, not baseball.

My question was why the fact that both partners are of the same sex is relevant.

Because a relationship cannot even BE a marriage if it is not between a man and a woman. My answer should be obvious enough by now given the definition of marriage which I've consistently and repeatedly noted!

Why should black people get the same rights as white people?

Because those are basic human and civil rights; special rights and priveliges under marriage are exactly that, special, not extended to everyone "just because".

Here's another question: why should married people get special benefits in the first place?

So...why do they have to be of different sexes? Before answering, consider that the "social norm" is useless and should never be logically used in any sort of debate, because the social norm changes. Also consider that legalizing homosexual marriges isn't going to FORCE other people to become homosexual.


And that's what it is, really. Give ONE reason why homosexual couples shouldn't have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple?

Oh, and do it without saying "they can't marry."

Because men and women, being opposite in sex, are sexually complimentary, and only a sexually complimentary relationship can ever have the possibility of producing children and thereby propagating society. Furthermore, only sexually complimentary relationships can establish sexually complimentary relationships as a social norm.

And if you will now ask why infertile heterosexual couples get to marry, I'll recommend you read the rest of the thread, because I've addressed it several times.

You know fully well what I meant.

Honestly, I can't be sure. You don't seem to be getting some of the plainest statements I've made.

How many times must I repeat myself until you get it? This is really quite annoying. I'm sure you're far more intelligent than your grasp on my arguments has been. READ:

So what? Commitment is necessary to marriage, but it's not the only criterion. I'm committed to each of my family members, but that doesn't mean I'm going to marry any of them.

Nice example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Homosexual unions should not be legally sanctioned because they divorce the reproductive function from marriage, distort human sexuality, and obscure the differences between the sexes.

The reproductive function of marriage has already been divorced, since you yourself admit that having children is not essential.
And how do homosexual marriages distort human sexuality and obscure the difference between the sexes?

False analogy. Same-sex relationships aren't marriage (how often must I explain this?). Your amateur's club is playing cricket, not baseball.

(You might start actually explaining it, instead of constantly repeating the same mantra over and over again)

How about instead of harping on about your point of view as if it were the high and mighty trust as proclaimed by God Almighty instead and actually, for just a few minutes, trying to see this from my point of view?
This 'false analogy' of mine was meant to question the effect of homosexual marriage on heterosexual ones in light of the argument that heterosexual marriages are somehow essential to the continuation of our species/culture.

I find it rather amusing that you start doubting my intelligence simply because I do not share your point of view, yet you are somehow incapable of treating my points in their proper context.

Because a relationship cannot even BE a marriage if it is not between a man and a woman. My answer should be obvious enough by now given the definition of marriage which I've consistently and repeatedly noted!

Your answer? My dear Ordon, you simply still have not answered my question why the definition of marriage has to be limited to male/female only.
You cannot use a concept's definition to define itself or prove that definition.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman only because that is how marriage is defined." does not work.

Because men and women, being opposite in sex, are sexually complimentary, and only a sexually complimentary relationship can ever have the possibility of producing children and thereby propagating society. Furthermore, only sexually complimentary relationships can establish sexually complimentary relationships as a social norm.

And if you will now ask why infertile heterosexual couples get to marry, I'll recommend you read the rest of the thread, because I've addressed it several times.

Wait, I think you said. "Because it's the social norm" and "Because"

I haven't actually seen you give a different answer, and I've just looked for one over the last couple of pages. Each time I asked you said I was Jewish (as if it were an insult) or drifted somewhere else.

Because those are basic human and civil rights; special rights and priveliges under marriage are exactly that, special, not extended to everyone "just because".

And just how you consider black and white people equal enough to receive those 'basic human rights', we consider homosexual relationships (marriages) to be equal enough to receive marriage rights.

Since everyone seems to be picking on Ordon and no one is answering my questions, I'll ask again:

1. Why are heterosexuals given special rights under marriage in the first place?

2. Why should those rights then be extended to homosexual couples?

Oh, and "because" and "its fair" are not acceptable answers.

"Homosexual marriage should be allowed."
"There is no such thing as homosexual 'marriage.'"

And why is that? Remember, no saying "just because" or any variant of that.

"They love each other, so they should be allowed to marry."
"It doesn't matter if they love each other. They can love each other to the death, but they still don't constitute a marriage."

Once again, you have yet to give an actual reason based on fact as to why this is.

For crying out loud! How about the FACT that that's what marriage is and has always been? It's ontological! Did you also miss my "a fish is not a human" example? Let's do that again:

"A fish is not a human."
"Why not?"
"Because a fish does not possess the necessary criteria to be classified as a human."
"What criteria would those be?"
"Well, for one, female humans have mammary glands. Fish do not. So fish aren't humans."
"You have yet to give an actual reason based on fact as to why this is."

"Irrelevant. They can still produce children."
"They can't establish marriage as a social norm, however. In fact, they can only distort it."

What did I JUST say about the social norm? THe social norm was once "women are property." Wanna go back to that? Of course, you called someone a "gay jew-devil," so you just might.

Effective argumentation. No, really. Emotionalism wins out over reason any day! If marriage is a social good, then what I've said is perfectly legitimate.

"Then why don't you let them marry? It doesn't harm you."

No answer to that one?

This was meant to have ironical effect, following the previous statement as it did. But, you tell me: does distorting marriage harm marriage?

And just how you consider black and white people equal enough to receive those 'basic human rights', we consider homosexual relationships (marriages) to be equal enough to receive marriage rights.


On what basis?

So reproduction is in fact irrelevant to this discussion?

No, it's not irrelevant. If it were, I wouldn't discuss it at all, now would I?

If you allow one group of people to marry despite not being able to reproduce, and not allow another group, there has to be another factor in which they differ.

Which is the fact that in the first case, they are of opposite gender, and in the second of equal gender. And you still have to explain why this is relevant.

The factor in which they differ is that infertility is only INCIDENTAL to a heterosexual relationship, since it is, after all, between a man and a woman; whereas is it INHERENT to a homosexual relationship. I made this distinction before. Did you miss that, too?

For crying out loud! How about the FACT that that's what marriage is and has always been? It's ontological! Did you also miss my "a fish is not a human" example? Let's do that again:

"A fish is not a human."
"Why not?"
"Because a fish does not possess the necessary criteria to be classified as a human."
"What criteria would those be?"
"Well, for one, female humans have mammary glands. Fish do not. So fish aren't humans."
"You have yet to give an actual reason based on fact as to why this is."

This was meant to have ironical effect, following the previous statement as it did. But, you tell me: does distorting marriage harm marriage?

You seem like the person thats looking to live behind a white picket fence with a squeaky clean smile house-wife taht you own. Your view of the Nuclear Marriage seems to not agree with my idea of a Marriage with foundation of love.You seem to say "Hey it's convenient that she's got a whole and I can stick something in it!" Your fish to human thing does not apply since this is a matter were the ideals of marriage change with a nations maturity. Your fish vs human analogy would not apply in Denmark or SPain and thus isn't universal whilst my argument could be faught with universal prospects. A fish ain't gonna change, laws and prejudism can be changed and removed altogether.

"A fish is not a human."
"Why not?"
"Because a fish does not possess the necessary criteria to be classified as a human."
"What criteria would those be?"
"Well, for one, female humans have mammary glands. Fish do not. So fish aren't humans."
"You have yet to give an actual reason based on fact as to why this is."

False analogy. Neither fish nor humans are artificial concepts.
Both possess traits inherent in them regardless of any outside bias/opinion/culture or tradition.

When you say "female humans have mammary glands. Fish do not. So fish aren't humans.", how would someone then say "Well, I don't think human females have mammary glands, so you are wrong"?

You seem to follow many Nazi traits, you agreed with that horridly rocsist Right or Left chain mail thing that was posted

I expressed agreement on a SINGLE DAMNED POINT, and my agreement was expressed specifically in disagreement to you.

and I do beleive your in the same boat as TT when it comes to Jewish people. I just found it interesting since I live in a country that has one of the smallest Jewish populations in the western world.

I was making a joke, because, frankly, I didn't think you seriously thought I was a Nazi.

On what basis?

On the basis that, indeed, marriage promote stability and form an efficient barrier against sexual diseases, so the more marriages there are, the better.

Wait, so homosexual marriges arn't allowed because only hetrosexual intercourse, when Mister Penis meets Miss Vagina, is the right kind?

That's one boring sex life.

I expressed agreement on a SINGLE DAMNED POINT, and my agreement was expressed specifically in disagreement to you.

I was making a joke, because, frankly, I didn't think you seriously thought I was a Nazi.

Well I think Jewish people wouldn't like you using there religion as a joke. It's the same as when people say "Haha that's gay", thats friggin offencive. I don't believe thats either funny, or witty. It's just my uncle is Jewish and when you said Heil Hitler, well you can actually be sent to jail in this country for saying that. That's if you haven't got the crap beaten out of you first. I will disagree with most everything you talk about marriage since you don't beleive in foundation of love and respect but instead economic prosperity.

No, it's not irrelevant. If it were, I wouldn't discuss it at all, now would I?

So, instead, you are saying that a couple needs to be, in theory, able to procreate to be married?
Because you cannot have it both ways. Either procreation is essential, and you have to deny marriage to anyone unable to procreate, or it is not, and there is another factor to determine suitability.
(and just in case, I know you believe one of those factors to be different genders)

The factor in which they differ is that infertility is only INCIDENTAL to a heterosexual relationship, since it is, after all, between a man and a woman; whereas is it INHERENT to a homosexual relationship. I made this distinction before. Did you miss that, too?

100 infertile heterosexual couples are going to produce as many babies as 100 homosexual couples. (assuming the infertility is 100% certain and only biological procreation, ie no artificial insemination or adoption)

Nice example of the pot calling the kettle black.

All right, Hakartopia, what WAS your point in telling me that homosexual couples can be just as committed as heterosexual couples?

The reproductive function of marriage has already been divorced, since you yourself admit that having children is not essential.

I have gone to lengths to explain how it is that an infertile heterosexual couple can benefit the institution of marriage and society in ways which a homosexual couple simply cannot. None of it is to say that the reproductive function has been divorced from marriage, but rather that infertility is incidental to heterosexual relationships.

And how do homosexual marriages distort human sexuality and obscure the difference between the sexes?

Read a biology text book. Then write a report on the biological function of sexuality and the roles of each sex therein.

(You might start actually explaining it, instead of constantly repeating the same mantra over and over again)

Shall I explain to you why a fish is not a human since no fish has a mammary gland? Shall I explain to you why water is not soil since they have different molecular structures? Shall I explain to you why cricket is not baseball since they use different instruments and rules? Notice, please, that in each of these questions the "why" is already answered by the statements following "since." Now, shall I explain to you why a same-sex couple is not a marriage since no same-sex couple is composed of a man and a woman?

How about instead of harping on about your point of view as if it were the high and mighty trust as proclaimed by God Almighty instead and actually, for just a few minutes, trying to see this from my point of view?

I have yet to see you look at it from my point of view, i.e., that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why? Well, I imagine it's because you know as well as I do that, given this definition of marriage, everything I've said makes perfect sense and stands to reason. If I were to look at it from your point of view, which is a redefinition of marriage whereby there is no fundamental ontological and moral distinction between a same-sex and an opposite-sex couple, everything I've said would collapse on itself.

This 'false analogy' of mine was meant to question the effect of homosexual marriage on heterosexual ones in light of the argument that heterosexual marriages are somehow essential to the continuation of our species/culture.

Well, let me ask you, then, do you think there might be a good deal of confusion if the cricket players started calling their game "baseball"? Might this lead to trouble when the amateur "baseball" players (who are, after all, really playing cricket) start insisting that they have a right to play with Major Leaguers, even though they will use different instruments and rules than Major League Baseball?

I find it rather amusing that you start doubting my intelligence simply because I do not share your point of view, yet you are somehow incapable of treating my points in their proper context.

I don't doubt your intelligence. Quite the opposite, actually. But I don't think you are addressing my arguments to the degree of which you are capable.

Your answer? My dear Ordon, you simply still have not answered my question why the definition of marriage has to be limited to male/female only.
You cannot use a concept's definition to define itself or prove that definition.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman only because that is how marriage is defined." does not work.

Well, Hakartopia, when you can tell me why there is no need to limit the definition of human being/soil/baseball to human being/soil/baseball, and that the definition can and should in fact be extended to cover fish/water/cricket, then perhaps I'll concede the point.

Because men and women, being opposite in sex, are sexually complimentary, and only a sexually complimentary relationship can ever have the possibility of producing children and thereby propagating society. Furthermore, only sexually complimentary relationships can establish sexually complimentary relationships as a social norm.

And if you will now ask why infertile heterosexual couples get to marry, I'll recommend you read the rest of the thread, because I've addressed it several times.

Wait, I think you said. "Because it's the social norm" and "Because"

Now wait a minute, here. Looks to me like I was talking about establishing marriage as a social norm, not defining marriage based on the social norm.

I haven't actually seen you give a different answer, and I've just looked for one over the last couple of pages. Each time I asked you said I was Jewish (as if it were an insult) or drifted somewhere else.

I've called you a "Jew-devil" twice, I believe; once in this thread and once in the other thread, and both times as a JOKE.

On the basis that, indeed, marriage promote stability and form an efficient barrier against sexual diseases, so the more marriages there are, the better.


Once again, why then extend special financial rights? And why extend those rights only to those who are technically married? Why not have a scale, more benefits the longer you stay in a relationship right?


Everyone still insists on picking on Ordon. Can no one answer my questions?

Once again, why then extend special financial rights? And why extend those rights only to those who are technically married? Why not have a scale, more benefits the longer you stay in a relationship right?


Everyone still insists on picking on Ordon. Can no one answer my questions?

Quite frankly I don't care. Im here to discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and not whether marriage should give people special rights.

I have gone to lengths to explain how it is that an infertile heterosexual couple can benefit the institution of marriage and society in ways which a homosexual couple simply cannot. None of it is to say that the reproductive function has been divorced from marriage, but rather that infertility is incidental to heterosexual relationships.

Read a biology text book. Then write a report on the biological function of sexuality and the roles of each sex therein.

Couldn't a homosexual (defined) marriage be just as prosperous. As you've said homosexuals are very successful in society so couldn't a marriage work just as well. If not better! Why oppose something that won't make a god damn difference. I don't like religion but I ain't protesting down at the local church do I now? I could say that money spent on religion could be better spent else where, but because religion does not blatantly affect me (dispite some of there views a true christian is humble) I have no reason to protest. Yet you seem to lack any tolerance or understanding. I unfortunately don't understand how a marriage without love could be fulfilling, if you say marriage isn't about fulfillment I think your heartless and then we'd have to go into the meaning of life which I won't do. But can't you even think for a minute, how bad would it be if homosexuals were given the right to be recognized couples? Would your economy bust? No of course not. Will God fly down and punish you? Of course not, if that would happened America wouldn't be there right now because of the whole eye for an eye thing. What is the negative side? Your morals get offended? Well who says your morals have more value than mine? The stone age will eventually pass and I'm thinking you will be laughed at for being so down right stubborn about not allowing people to live as they please. Just as they did to Nazi supporters and rascists who endorced slavery. Same shit, different smell.

You seem like the person thats looking to live behind a white picket fence with a squeaky clean smile house-wife taht you own. Your view of the Nuclear Marriage seems to not agree with my idea of a Marriage with foundation of love.

No, I don't agree with your idea of marriage with a foundation of warm, fuzzy feelings and sexual attraction. In fact, it is really only because this subtle and destructive idea has a hold on the Western mind that the whole debate over homosexual "marriage" has arisen.

You seem to say "Hey it's convenient that she's got a whole and I can stick something in it!"

Well, that only proves how little you know.

Your fish to human thing does not apply since this is a matter were the ideals of marriage change with a nations maturity. Your fish vs human analogy would not apply in Denmark or SPain and thus isn't universal whilst my argument could be faught with universal prospects. A fish ain't gonna change, laws and prejudism can be changed and removed altogether.

My "a fish is not a human" example DOES apply, in fact, and quite directly. I was illustrating the ontological principle: just as the definition (i.e., nature) of a human precludes a fish from being identified as one, so does the definition (i.e., nature) of marriage preclude a homosexual couple from being identified as one.

Once again, why then extend special financial rights? And why extend those rights only to those who are technically married? Why not have a scale, more benefits the longer you stay in a relationship right?


Everyone still insists on picking on Ordon. Can no one answer my questions?
We're not picking on him we're answering him. Would your scale apply to all relationships?

False analogy. Neither fish nor humans are artificial concepts.
Both possess traits inherent in them regardless of any outside bias/opinion/culture or tradition.

Then use cricket and baseball.

We're not picking on him we're answering him. Would your scale apply to all relationships?


LOL I'm not applying a scale, its an idiotic idea and was meant to be presented as such, apparently you're thrilled with it.

LOL I'm not applying a scale, its an idiotic idea and was meant to be presented as such, apparently you're thrilled with it.

Oh piss off, you sat there whinging cause no one would answer your question (which you now say was just a joke) either ask a serious question or shut the hell up.

Success should breed rewards. Hetrosexuals are just as likely to drop the ball on a marriage as Homosexuals and vica versa. Anyways, don't beg for an answer to be answered if you just gonna go "HAHA got ya!"

Well I think Jewish people wouldn't like you using there religion as a joke. It's the same as when people say "Haha that's gay", thats friggin offencive. I don't believe thats either funny, or witty. It's just my uncle is Jewish and when you said Heil Hitler, well you can actually be sent to jail in this country for saying that. That's if you haven't got the crap beaten out of you first.

Well, I don't particularly like to be called a Nazi, since I am not one, and since I detest Nazi ideology. But I've grown a thick enough skin that I can take a joke---and I thought you were joking the first time you called me a Nazi and then a pig. I responded in kind. Apparently, I misread you. If that's the case, I apologize.

I must say, though, I'm glad not to be in your country, wherever that is. I like the principle of free speech, even when I disagree with what another person says. I like that people don't go to jail or get the crap beat of them here in America for expressing speaking their mind or for making jokes. (And by the way, I also have a Jewish uncle. He's a great guy.)

I will disagree with most everything you talk about marriage since you don't beleive in foundation of love and respect but instead economic prosperity.

I have not once argued that marriage should be founded on economic prosperity. Where on earth do you get that idea?

So, instead, you are saying that a couple needs to be, in theory, able to procreate to be married?
Because you cannot have it both ways. Either procreation is essential, and you have to deny marriage to anyone unable to procreate, or it is not, and there is another factor to determine suitability.
(and just in case, I know you believe one of those factors to be different genders)

100 infertile heterosexual couples are going to produce as many babies as 100 homosexual couples. (assuming the infertility is 100% certain and only biological procreation, ie no artificial insemination or adoption)

I think I've adequately explained why the allowance for infertile heterosexual couples. If you can't accept the sociological argument I've presented, so be it. I feel no need to expound further than this: homosexual couples can never establish committed, heterosexual relationships as a norm. End of story.

All right, Hakartopia, what WAS your point in telling me that homosexual couples can be just as committed as heterosexual couples?

My point was that you mentioned commitment as one of the (essential) nececities for being married.

[QUOTE=Ordon]I have gone to lengths to explain how it is that an infertile heterosexual couple can benefit the institution of marriage and society in ways which a homosexual couple simply cannot. None of it is to say that the reproductive function has been divorced from marriage, but rather that infertility is incidental to heterosexual relationships.

And why are homosexual couples incapable of promoting marriage as a good thing? (not your exact words)

Read a biology text book. Then write a report on the biological function of sexuality and the roles of each sex therein.

No.

Shall I explain to you why a fish is not a human since no fish has a mammary gland? Shall I explain to you why water is not soil since they have different molecular structures? Shall I explain to you why cricket is not baseball since they use different instruments and rules? Notice, please, that in each of these questions the "why" is already answered by the statements following "since." Now, shall I explain to you why a same-sex couple is not a marriage since no same-sex couple is composed of a man and a woman?

All I want to know is why the concept of marriage NEEDS to exclude same-sex couples.

I agree with you on the other 3 points, but not the fourth. Doesn't that suggest something to you?

I have yet to see you look at it from my point of view, i.e., that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why? Well, I imagine it's because you know as well as I do that, given this definition of marriage, everything I've said makes perfect sense and stands to reason. If I were to look at it from your point of view, which is a redefinition of marriage whereby there is no fundamental ontological and moral distinction between a same-sex and an opposite-sex couple, everything I've said would collapse on itself.

I'm not actually trying to change your point of view, merely to understand it.
And off course everything you said would make perfect sense if I took up your point of view as correct, that's obvious.
I think 'look at it from my point of view' was a bad expression, so let's just forget about it.

Well, let me ask you, then, do you think there might be a good deal of confusion if the cricket players started calling their game "baseball"? Might this lead to trouble when the amateur "baseball" players (who are, after all, really playing cricket) start insisting that they have a right to play with Major Leaguers, even though they will use different instruments and rules than Major League Baseball?

Completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, sorry.

I don't doubt your intelligence. Quite the opposite, actually. But I don't think you are addressing my arguments to the degree of which you are capable.

And what makes you think you are adressing mine properly.
Take the previous point for example. Twice in a row now you have ignored my statement that the comparison between major league baseball and amateur baseball was not meant to somehow prove to you that homosexual marriages are equal to same-sex marriages.

Well, Hakartopia, when you can tell me why there is no need to limit the definition of human being/soil/baseball to human being/soil/baseball, and that the definition can and should in fact be extended to cover fish/water/cricket, then perhaps I'll concede the point.

Because changing the definitions of fish/humans/water/soil/baseball and cricket would have an effect on said fish/humans/water/etc.
How would your marriage be effected if Tom and Harry on the other side of town are also able to get married?

And once again, I do not care for changing your point.
I do not have the Delusion De Granduer that, by making one statement, I could change your opinion on a matter which you apparently care for deeply.
To assume such would be, quite frankly, an insult to your integrity as a human being.

Couldn't a homosexual (defined) marriage be just as prosperous. As you've said homosexuals are very successful in society so couldn't a marriage work just as well. If not better!

This has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Why oppose something that won't make a god damn difference.

Conversely, why support it?

I don't like religion but I ain't protesting down at the local church do I now? I could say that money spent on religion could be better spent else where, but because religion does not blatantly affect me (dispite some of there views a true christian is humble) I have no reason to protest. Yet you seem to lack any tolerance or understanding. I unfortunately don't understand how a marriage without love could be fulfilling, if you say marriage isn't about fulfillment I think your heartless and then we'd have to go into the meaning of life which I won't do. But can't you even think for a minute, how bad would it be if homosexuals were given the right to be recognized couples? Would your economy bust? No of course not. Will God fly down and punish you? Of course not, if that would happened America wouldn't be there right now because of the whole eye for an eye thing. What is the negative side? Your morals get offended? Well who says your morals have more value than mine? The stone age will eventually pass and I'm thinking you will be laughed at for being so down right stubborn about not allowing people to live as they please. Just as they did to Nazi supporters and rascists who endorced slavery. Same shit, different smell.

Whatever. You responses continue to lack any cohesive reasoning and they do not address the points I've made. They are emotional outbursts, which can only be expected from one who has invested so much emotional energy into the issue by virtue of his stake in it.

I think I've adequately explained why the allowance for infertile heterosexual couples. If you can't accept the sociological argument I've presented, so be it. I feel no need to expound further than this: homosexual couples can never establish committed, heterosexual relationships as a norm. End of story.

You are right, this is going nowhere. Nontheless, I found this a most pleasing debate and thank you for it sir. Have a good day.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Conversely, why support it?

Whatever. You responses continue to lack any cohesive reasoning and they do not address the points I've made. They are emotional outbursts, which can only be expected from one who has invested so much emotional energy into the issue by virtue of his stake in it.

Why support woman in business? Why support any marrital rights? WHy support childs or racial rights? Because it allows everyone to be equal, safe and happy.

Don't friggin whatever me, me answers are far more valid than your "Just Because" answers as I have considered the outcome and as I consider myself HUMAN I beleive I have a right to be given equal rights.

You continue to appear cold, heartless and inhumane.

you know, I'm really sick and tired of this.

Look, either marrige is about kids or it ISN'T. DOn't give that "social norm" bullshit. There's no such thing. The social norm USED to be that women were property in the relationship.

And why are homosexual couples incapable of promoting marriage as a good thing? (not your exact words)

Because they aren't marriages.

Read a biology text book. Then write a report on the biological function of sexuality and the roles of each sex therein.

No.

Then don't ask me how homosexual relationships distort human sexuality and obscure the sexes.

All I want to know is why the concept of marriage NEEDS to exclude same-sex couples.

For the same reason baseball cannot be cricket.

I agree with you on the other 3 points, but not the fourth. Doesn't that suggest something to you?

Yeah, it suggests that you do not accept the definition of marriage.

Well, let me ask you, then, do you think there might be a good deal of confusion if the cricket players started calling their game "baseball"? Might this lead to trouble when the amateur "baseball" players (who are, after all, really playing cricket) start insisting that they have a right to play with Major Leaguers, even though they will use different instruments and rules than Major League Baseball?

Completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, sorry.

I don't see why it's irrelevant. You wanted to know how I thought including homosexual relationships under the umbrella of marriage would adversely affect marriage. After reworking your initial analogy, I extended it to show how. Now, if you don't think that calling cricket "baseball" would be confusing, or that allowing cricket players to play "baseball" by cricket rules with Major Leaguers would be contentious, then explain to me why not.

And what makes you think you are adressing mine properly.
Take the previous point for example. Twice in a row now you have ignored my statement that the comparison between major league baseball and amateur baseball was not meant to somehow prove to you that homosexual [sic.; I assume you mean "heterosexual"] are equal to same-sex marriages.

But herein lies the very problem! You classify both as "marriages," probably without even thinking about it, although I've repeatedly said that "marriage" refers ONLY to heterosexual relationships. Thus, to call any same-sex relationship a "marriage" is nonsensical; it describes an ontologically impossible concept. As far as I'm concerned, you would have me believe that

"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman which is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a man and a woman"

is a coherent concept! To make the analogy appropriate, if indeed you are seeking to understand my view, the amateur "baseballers" must not actually be playing baseball, but some other sport. I chose cricket, because of the many similarites but vast differences. Hence my extension of your analogy to explain the dilemma of counting same-sex relationships as marriages.

Because changing the definitions of fish/humans/water/soil/baseball and cricket would have an effect on said fish/humans/water/etc.
How would your marriage be effected if Tom and Harry on the other side of town are also able to get married?

My marriage would be degraded by being equated to and treated the same as an inherently immoral and unreproductive relationship.

Why support woman in business? Why support any marrital rights? WHy support childs or racial rights? Because it allows everyone to be equal, safe and happy.

You asked me why I should oppose something if it makes no difference! So, women entering the workforce and rights for children and other races did not make any difference?

Don't friggin whatever me, me answers are far more valid than your "Just Because" answers as I have considered the outcome and as I consider myself HUMAN I beleive I have a right to be given equal rights.

You continue to appear cold, heartless and inhumane.

Basically, you think your answers are far more valid BECAUSE they're emotional outbursts. Well, in a reasonable debate, that doesn't fly.

you know, I'm really sick and tired of this.

You don't thinkk I am?

Look, either marrige is about kids or it ISN'T. DOn't give that "social norm" bullshit. There's no such thing.

It is about kids. Homosexual relationships do not provide kids with a proper social model for the propagation of society. Even infertile heterosexual marriages can do that.

The social norm USED to be that women were property in the relationship.

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I am advocating the establishment and continuation of a particular social norm, not any and all social norms under the sun.

You are right, this is going nowhere. Nontheless, I found this a most pleasing debate and thank you for it sir. Have a good day.

Well, I'm glad you've enjoyed the debate, Hakartopia. Please do respond to some of my later posts if you find the occasion.

You asked me why I should oppose something if it makes no difference! So, women entering the workforce and rights for children and other races did not make any difference?

Basically, you think your answers are far more valid BECAUSE they're emotional outbursts. Well, in a reasonable debate, that doesn't fly.

Neither does, "Because the law says so" and "Because one has a penis and one has a vagina" I really don't think mine are emotional out bursts. I posed some questions to you. My examples were to see if you value equality. Clearly you don't. Questioning love in marriage is just an emotional outburst? No is another disagreement of morals. Look maybe I should stop talking to you as everyone else has, you seem to just repeat yourself and dehumanize everyone.

Scale my answers to yours, mine questioned if you saw relavance of love in marriage, what you thought of euqality, why you felt the need to ban the marriage, your opinions on gays in general, why you think you can just fuck anyone- to your- "Because", "It's biologically right", "It's the social 'norm'", and fish aren't human remarks. I'd say in a resonable debate, you'd stack up just a full of bias and emotional value as me. Despite the fact you clearly don't see the need for emotion, or something along those lines. Degrade my argument all you want but when you discover what emotion and fact is, we'll chat again.

Neither does, "Because the law says so" and "Because one has a penis and one has a vagina"

I haven't said anything about what the law currently says about marriage, just like I never mentioned anything about economic prosperity. And, yes, "one has a penis and one has a vagina" is a valid answer to a question about the differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, which involved the differences between men and women.

I really don't think mine are emotional out bursts. I posed some questions to you. My examples were to see if you value equality. Clearly you don't. Questioning love in marriage is just an emotional outburst? No is another disagreement of morals. Look maybe I should stop talking to you as everyone else has, you seem to just repeat yourself and dehumanize everyone.

No, the emotional outburst is that you have relied heavily on your feelings to guide your responses to my posts. You don't provide rational argumentation, and you put words in my mouth. I repeat myself because I am repeatedly asked the same and similar questions by various people, and because often the meat of my arguments is entirely missed and an irrelevant point brought up in return.

Scale my answers to yours, mine questioned if you saw relavance of love in marriage, what you thought of euqality, why you felt the need to ban the marriage, your opinions on gays in general, why you think you can just fuck anyone- to your- "Because", "It's biologically right", "It's the social 'norm'", and fish aren't human remarks. I'd say in a resonable debate, you'd stack up just a full of bias and emotional value as me. Despite the fact you clearly don't see the need for emotion, or something along those lines. Degrade my argument all you want but when you discover what emotion and fact is, we'll chat again.

I have plenty of emotions regarding this issue, but I try my damnedest not to found my arguments on them. There is relevance to love in marriage, but "love" as it is typically understood---an emotional attachment based on "good feelings" about and sexual attraction to another person---is not the foundation of marriage, nor is it ultimately of any real importance. This kind of "love" fades in and out. Real love is COMMITMENT, which I have expressed is essential to marriage. Equality already exists for homosexuals, which I have already said and which I have no qualms about. I don't feel the need to ban marriage, but I do not want homosexual relationships to be treated as though they were marriages. My opinion on gays in general is that they are humans like everyone else, and should have the same rights as everyone else---but that they already have these rights, and pushing for acceptance of their relationships is tantamount to pushing for special protection.

I am advocating the establishment and continuation of a particular social norm, not any and all social norms under the sun.

Why this particular social norm and not another? Why is it superior to have children raised by a "nuclear family"? Why not large families that include aunts uncles, grandparents or cousins living in the same house or neighbor hood, sharing responsibility for each other's children. Obviously the parents excercise final control over their offspring, but perhaps they are very busy performing other functions for this large group of common genetic interest. The other community members come in and fill this gap. And, since we're all civilized people, why can't communities of mutually agreeable, unrelated, folks get together and raise children?

As a society, sometimes we take children away from parents we deem unfit. This implies that we collectively have responsibility for children in the macro sense. Does this apply to smaller situations?

Personally, I think the concept of the nuclear family has been overdone, and it leads to disconnected, disaffected children who have a hard time relating to others. Children are stuck in front of the TV, and isolated from complex, real social dynamics because they have smaller social circles than they would if they lived in a more tribal environment - which is what we're evolved for. Take a look at the social structures of the apes, which are simplified models of human interactions. Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey make for fascinating reading.

A healthy stable society does not necessarily result from the model of a man, a woman, and their 2.5 children.

Some research indicates that homosexuality arises as a result of overpopulation pressures, indicating that there are plenty of children, and propagation needs to slow. The theory is that the homosexual members of the family function as aunties and uncles and proagate their genes by helping to raise and provide for children that they are related to. Whoa! Sounds like a sensible, stable way to do things. (I believe this research was mentioned in Discover magazine, but I'm not going through 15 years of back issues tonight.)

Logically however, this suggests that homosexuals should not seek children of their own. However, it does suggest that they make perfectly competent and acceptable caregivers. But wait! Modern farming and food distribution techniques make it possible to healthily support a population that would be "overcrowded". Ergo, there is no biological reason for homosexuals not to raise children.

So, is it "normal" that homosexuals should form healthy pair-bonds? Well, if this great system that the process of evolution (or perhaps divine design) has developed, why do these "auxiliary" members of society have any sexual / pair-bonding instincts at all? Why are they not sexually / pair-bonding neutral? It seems to be a stable, natural arrangement, why is it "wrong" to be homosexual?

The only argument that I've heard that "might" make sense is that homosexuality is an "aberration" inflicted by satan, and that same-sex attraction is a corruption of the body and soul by same.

But, if you believe that, I believe you subscribe to a unstable worldview that will not propagate healthy children that are good for healthy society, and probably should avoid having them at all costs.

There is relevance to love in marriage, but "love" as it is typically understood---an emotional attachment based on "good feelings" about and sexual attraction to another person---is not the foundation of marriage, nor is it ultimately of any real importance. This kind of "love" fades in and out. Real love is COMMITMENT, which I have expressed is essential to marriage.

Is the implication that homosexuals are not capable of the level of commitment required to sustain a same-sex marriage / lifetime civil union?

I'm sorry I arrived rather late in the melee. Ordon, what is your position on civil unions conferring substantially equal rights and responsibilities to gays?

I'm sorry I arrived rather late in the melee. Ordon, what is your position on civil unions conferring substantially equal rights and responsibilities to gays?

Don't worry about arriving late. I hope we all have lives outside of this forum that keep us committed elsewhere and to more important things than political debates.

I think conferring what are essentially the equivalents of marriage rights on so-called "civil unions" is just a round-about way of saying that the two relationships are themselves equivalent. I don't think they are and I don't think they ought to be treated as such. Furthermore, I think even providing limited benefits to such relationships is outside the scope of the government's responsibilities, particularly because I do not see such relationships either as moral or as socially beneficial. To clarify my stance still further, I am utterly opposed to shot-gun weddings, common law marriage, and no-fault divorce.

Wasnt it the condemnation of "homosexual perverts"

So god made these people gay, they are not perverts if they share love with another man.

Homosexual perverts would be
a) straight people havin sex, like the greeks that that specific comment was adressed to, who favoured homosexuality even thouhg many werent gay.
b) gay people who know they are gay but go against their nature and pretend they arent. Im not including people who dont know in this and have children or whatever. It must be hard to notce when you are drilled by society to expect heterosexuality you would assume attraction feels a certain way, but actually it isnt?

God made gays (suspending disbelief over his existance), so it must be just another part of gender. Afterall there are gay animals so its natural. And why would a divine being make people who are doomed to hell?

I doubt god hates gays. But Im sure he hates narrow minded bigots who dont think for themselves and follow his teachings as he meant them to be followed. (note I doubt he hates them either, but he probably cant take them to heaven if they arent repentant for it)