How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


375 posted 08-05-2004 01:31 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Every sin that heterosexuals commit, it seems when homosexuals commit them OR heterosexuals in homosexual acts those sins are treated not just as sins but placed in the coverall term "homosexuality" I think this harshly displaces anger and blame for the actual sin--adultery, lechery, etc, and makes out homosexual adultery, homosexual lechery etc as "homosexuality"  Yet when heterosexuals sin, no one shall ever call them by their sexuality--"heterosexuals".  If a heterosexual commits adultery, it is adultery and he or she is an adulterer for that, not a "heterosexual"  Does anyone see what I am trying to show?  After you take away all the misuse and abuse of the word homosexuality, which itself I think truly grows into mistreatment of the  
people involved themselves--After you remove making the word "homosexuality" a cover-all for all homosexuals may do--and sins that heterosexuals commit too as "homosexuality" when homosexuals commit them too (or heterosexuals in homosexual acts), what is left as the sin?  We return again to fixing upon gender and gender-combination, or gender-preference, and judging and discriminating based on that--which is once more sexism
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


376 posted 08-05-2004 01:44 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

You are presupposing homosexual orientation and acts to be normative and morally neutral.


If that were true, then your points would be more than valid.  But I don't share your presupposition.  And I've already explained why.


If homosexual acts ARE lecherous, then it is no use contrasting a lecherous homosexual with a non-lecherous homosexual.  Do you see my point?


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


377 posted 08-05-2004 01:49 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

What I am saying is that lechery is lechery, adultery is adultery, etc not homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Why do you seem to believe otherwise?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


378 posted 08-05-2004 01:53 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,


(we're here at the same time.  Wanna Instant message?)


Is homosexuality different that heterosexuality?


Thus it can be spoken of in it's own regard.  Lechery is Lechery, Slavery is Slavery, Apples are Apples, and Homosexuality is Homosexuality.


I'm not understanding your point.


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


379 posted 08-05-2004 02:02 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

think of it this way.  If homosexuality (all kinds and expressions, monogamous or otherwise) is wrong, then there is no such thing as "homosexual adultery", or "homosexual lechery".


You have to start from the idea that homosexuality is normative and morally "okay" to even allow these words to describe a type of homosexual activity.  


The reason adultery is not called "heterosexual adultery" is because the heterosexual configuration is normative, and taken for granted.


But adultery and homosexuality have this in common, they are both forms of sexually immorality, a general term that describes any sexual expression that strays from God's standards.


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


380 posted 08-05-2004 02:05 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hey Ess,

We've been down this road before, and I don't mind explaining again, or trying to clarify, but I think we've covered all the bases on this thread (and then some).  Despite it's continuance, I think the groaning has begun long enough ago to start winding this one up.  


Email me.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


381 posted 08-05-2004 03:13 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos,

May we keep our parliament in this thread?  It is already come this far, now we--all of us-- should start working more towards our unanimous agreement              
Or some sort of compromise at least!


"Is homosexuality different that heterosexuality?"

Yes; but it is also similar      It is a "cognate."


"Thus it can be spoken of in it's own regard.  Lechery is Lechery, Slavery is Slavery, Apples are Apples, and Homosexuality is Homosexuality.
I'm not understanding your point. "

My point is that people try to make out homosexuality as perversity, backed up by what seems perversity in the bible as well,  when that is what homosexuality is taken to by people that make neglectful and wrong choices, the same way as heterosexuality is taken to wrongs and ill choices too. (hetero/homo) Sexuality/sexual personality is not the wrong itself, but ill will and ill doings about sexuality are.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-05-2004 03:50 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


382 posted 08-05-2004 04:06 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"think of it this way.  If homosexuality (all kinds and expressions, monogamous or otherwise) is wrong, then there is no such thing as "homosexual adultery", or "homosexual lechery".

IF all kinds and expressions were wrong that "IF" would not be there.  
But we know far otherwise--that all kinds and expressions are NOT wrong.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


383 posted 08-05-2004 08:12 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
IF all kinds and expressions were wrong that "IF" would not be there.  
But we know far otherwise--that all kinds and expressions are NOT wrong.



Whoa, not so fast.  Let's remember context.  When I said "all kinds and expressions", I meant all kinds and expressions of homosexuality.  I was not making a generalized statement.


Secondly, if you are taking the context I meant, what do you mean by saying that if all expressions of homosexuality were wrong "the IF wouldn't be there"? That's not a true statement.  That's like saying in Galileo's time "If the Earth rotated around the sun, the If wouldn't be there".  Questions seek answers but they don't determine them.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


384 posted 08-06-2004 12:38 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

That's what I meant too Stephenos.
"If ALL expressions and kinds are wrong" is like beginning a statement with "if all the weather is always rainy..." .  It doesn't make much sense because we know the weather is not always rainy, and we know that homosexuality is not locked into one behavior.  That's because it is sexuality not one act, one behavior, one choice, or one outcome.  
It has all the possible depth that heterosexuality has, only with the difference of involving people of the same sex.  Any differences that you may show between heterosexuality and homosexualiy don't come anywhere close to the similarities because sexuality is almost as vague as saying "nature" "will" "behavior"  It is not at as fixed as "gender"  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


385 posted 08-07-2004 11:25 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

your argument is that homosexuality is too complex to be immoral?  Too broad?  Is that some kind of rule, like Occam's razor in reverse?


But it is the denial of God's will and design that makes this type of behavior immoral.  


I could just as easily say (by your standards) that pornography and group-sex are too complex and varied in their expressions to be immoral.  And after all,  only consenting, willing adults are involved.  I've heard you call these behaviors "lecherous" and immoral in other posts, Essorant.  Why are they immoral?  Upon what basis?


I just want to point out, once more, that by your own standards, your own moral convictions about certain sexual behaviors fall by the wayside too.  You're using a double standard.  


You are denying that certain sexual practices can be intrinsically immoral, on one hand, yet complaining of sexual "perversion" on the other, making referece to other forms of free sexual preference that you don't like.  What gives?


quote:
sexuality is almost as vague as saying "nature" "will" "behavior"  It is not at as fixed as "gender"

Which is what I've been saying all along ... and the very reason that deeming homosexual orientation immoral cannot cogently be compared to racism or sexism.   


Stephen.  
~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 04-23-2001
Posts 544
in your dreams


386 posted 01-14-2005 09:53 PM       View Profile for ~DreamChild~   Email ~DreamChild~   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ~DreamChild~

MAN + WOMAN + commitment = marriage.

No such thing as "holy" matrimony without this equation, no matter how decayed morals in america become, and i do think they will get worse...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


387 posted 01-15-2005 02:56 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

LOL. Did you happen to notice into which forum you wandered, dc? Maybe you'd like to support that with, well you know, evidence or logic or something?
~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 04-23-2001
Posts 544
in your dreams


388 posted 01-15-2005 07:48 PM       View Profile for ~DreamChild~   Email ~DreamChild~   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ~DreamChild~

well ron, a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina. these two organs were made to fit together, unlike a penis and an anus. so , it not only defies god, but nature.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


389 posted 01-15-2005 09:23 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I'm not sure how you determined either what does and doesn't fit or who "made" it to fit, but frankly, I'd just as soon not know. We're up to nearly 400 posts in this thread and see no reason at this point to get it moved behind closed doors.

So, you believe the defining characteristic of marriage is sex? If two people can't get sweaty in a manner dictated by you, they can't get married? I presume if two people stop having sex (as dictated by you, of course), their marriage should be dissolved as well? (You might want to pass that one by your grandparents before answering.)
~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 04-23-2001
Posts 544
in your dreams


390 posted 01-16-2005 10:22 AM       View Profile for ~DreamChild~   Email ~DreamChild~   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ~DreamChild~

Well, Ron, marriage is more than just sex, of course, but if it weren't for the sexual part, then marriage could consist of either gender's unification. just like the topic indicates.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


391 posted 01-16-2005 10:55 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

So you only want to consider the sexual aspect because you think it implies the limitations you want?

Sorry, but if sex is important then it logically has to apply to everyone. Any person with a physical disability that prevents sex (by your definition, of course) can't participate in marriage, regardless whether that disability is a result of age, infirmity or even just disinclination. However, if sexual activity is not important enough to be a determining factor, that TOO has to apply to everyone.


~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 04-23-2001
Posts 544
in your dreams


392 posted 01-16-2005 12:36 PM       View Profile for ~DreamChild~   Email ~DreamChild~   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ~DreamChild~

Well, if sex is not relevent in marriage, then there is no need for marriage to be restricted to just male and female.then why marry at all? i love my best friend, who is a male, but i see no need to marry him.

the fact is , sex is a relevant issue of marriage, and i'm not trying to argue a hypothetical issue. marriage is a holy institution honored by God. While man's corruption may condone same sex marriage, it is an abomination to God. So if marriage constitutes "holy" matrimony, and same sex marriage is an abomination, then why even marry at all?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


393 posted 01-18-2005 02:18 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

I think Gender would be more essential to the marriage question, rather than individual sexual ability.  Just because someone can't have sex, doesn't change their gender.  It does however remain necessarily linked to sexuality in a general way.  That way, individual exceptions (as you like to bring up for your argument) do not disprove the rule.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


394 posted 01-18-2005 05:39 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Gender is only essential to sexism.
JoshG
Member
since 11-16-2004
Posts 127
TX, USA


395 posted 01-18-2005 06:00 PM       View Profile for JoshG   Email JoshG   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JoshG

Stephanos has a point and it was made about 10 post back.  This topic is never going to be agreed upon, no matter what logic is used.  The people involved in this conversation obviously live by different perspectives, beliefs, logics, etc.  There is not an absolute truth to those that do not believe in the Bible and the God that facilitates is promise's, commandments, etc.  The only merit to the anti-homosexuality argument is one based on absolute belief in what God's word says about it.  The only thing that makes homosexuality immoral is because God said.

Yes, I am a Christian, but I know the limits of human logic and this topic goes beyond those abilities.

I am not saying that we couldn't sit here and argue symantics all day, but at the end of that day you still have different opinions.  It will not be this thread that changes minds, but the truth of revelations that makes believers out of the masses.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


396 posted 01-18-2005 09:57 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
i love my best friend, who is a male, but i see no need to marry him.

Marriage isn't about love, either, DreamChild. It's about commitment. And if you and your bud wanted to spend the rest of your lives taking care of each other, marriage is one of the few ways to remove the legal obstacles that would otherwise prevent you from doing so.

quote:
I think Gender would be more essential to the marriage question, rather than individual sexual ability.

That's cool, too, Stephen. Because, homosexual or hetero, essential or not, we all pretty much have genders.  

quote:
The only thing that makes homosexuality immoral is because God said.

Thank you, Josh. Since no one yet has been able to show that homosexuality is wrong, its morality is, indeed, the crux of the matter.

And, of course, if one believe something is immoral, the answer is fairly simple. Don't do it.

Religion is based on a personal relationship with God, with an emphasis on personal. You are free to worship as you wish, which certainly includes living your life in accordance with your beliefs. You are NOT free, however, to force those beliefs on others. Certainly not legally, and in my opinion, not even morally. Humanity wasn't given free will to choose just so you or others like you could take it away.

By all means, choose for yourself. Let others do the same. And both will reap the consequences of their choices. Isn't THAT what God intended?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


397 posted 01-19-2005 01:01 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
You are NOT free, however, to force those beliefs on others. Certainly not legally, and in my opinion, not even morally.



Pardon me, Ron, but defining this in legislation whether pro or anti homosexual, is in some measure  "forcing those beliefs on others".  Since traditional marriage is the most widely accepted view, for many a moral issue, and by many a foundational aspect of our civilization,  I see the angry push by the few who want it (through the arbitrary actions of judges who sidestep any "voting" in determining such weighty issues) as quite an imposition on a culture which feels that it will be harmful and lamentable for many reasons.


My point is, when two differ in opinion in matters concerning public policy, SOMEONE is imposed upon.  So why not just argue your case, rather than ad hominem villify those who disagree with you?


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


398 posted 01-19-2005 01:14 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
That's cool, too, Stephen. Because, homosexual or hetero, essential or not, we all pretty much have genders.



My point was, that using examples of sexual inability to downplay the intrinsic connection between sex and marriage is about as valid as opting to include every man in the Army since some already enlisted don't actually fight in the war.  Or that a grown man should be able to join the Boy Scouts, since some twelve year olds have facial hair too.  


Stephen.      
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


399 posted 01-19-2005 02:26 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
... which feels that it will be harmful and lamentable for many reasons.

But are any of those reasons based on something other than bias and prejudice, Stephen? No one yet has been able to show compelling evidence that your "feelings" have any basis in fact. I've said many times I don't think you can force your beliefs on others. Well, guess what? I don't think you can force your feelings on others, either.

It doesn't matter if marriage is the most widely accepted view, it doesn't matter if it is a moral issue (that especially doesn't matter), and it doesn't matter if it was a foundational aspect of civilization. Each of those points have been equally true of any number of wrongs that have been righted in the past five thousand years. You want to deny someone their rights for no other reason than you don't like them, you don't understand them, and you are afraid of some nebulous "might-be" no one has been able to demonstrate.

Ain't gonna fly.

quote:
My point was ...

I understood your point, Stephen. But you didn't state it very well and you're still not stating it very well. That's not surprising, since it's a bit specious and more than a bit circular.

Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage isn't about procreation. Marriage isn't necessarily even about love. You find it hard to honestly argue those points because, after all, they reflect several thousand years worth of reality. So, you want to make Gender the answer to the issue. Excuse me, Stephen? Gender can't be the answer to the issue, because Gender IS the issue. You're simply restating your destination and calling it a road.


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors