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  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
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 
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


50 posted 04-09-2004 03:40 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

The elimination of sex in the instance of voting did not create anarchy or undermine the law. There was no free for all that ensued where people argued the limits as discrimantory to minors or non US citizens who work,vacation, by product and pay taxes to the US government. Reasonable limits were set, the only change to the law was..sex. We now deem a culture backwords for not recognizing women's rights or judging a child's worth on it's gender. As societies evolve so then must their laws. Reasonable boundaries are discussed and settled upon the way they always have.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


51 posted 04-09-2004 04:08 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
You mean without law?  Surely you aren't implying that such espoused principles by you, as "do no harm to your neighbor", should also be expected to flourish without the protection of law? That's way too easy to get anything you don't agree with, out of public policy ... Just say if it's worth anything at all, it'll prosper without any help.  But it's a different story when it comes to public policy you happen to agree with.

No, Stephen, I was talking about tradition being maintained within the law. And abandoned from within the law when they prove to be nothing but tradition and without merit.

In other words, "that's the way it's always been" is a damn poor reason to do anything.

quote:
There is more to law than the constitution. There are state laws, among others, too.

Which can and often will be superceded by the Constitution. For example, many states currently have statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages, and there is excellent reason to believe those will eventually be struck down as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Stephen makes the *very* relevant point that other state laws, like bestiality and incest, could be similarly struck down. And if they are found to discriminate, they should be struck down.

That is unlikely to happen, however, because bestiality, incest and polygamy are generally regarded as choices. No one chooses to be born black and there is a growing body of evidence that most don't choose to be gay. It is the absence of choice that determines discrimination.

quote:
Even God's judgement about something, may not be bound forever to stay the same.

Then he isn't God.

The inherent paradox of a God that knows everything and can do everything is that He can't change His mind. The very implication would constrain such a deity to the limits of Time.

However, there is absolutely no question at all but what WE are constrained by time and haven't yet been told all there is to be told. When you tell a child not to leave the yard, after all, that directive isn't meant to last their entire life. In truth, though, I see no reason to think that is the case here. I think, instead, the child has been told to not leave the yard and so sits on the porch, afraid to even enter the yard for fear of disobeying. The child never understood the directive and probably won't until he gets a little older.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


52 posted 04-09-2004 04:46 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If God knows and can do everything, why  should that mean he may not change?  Knowing everything and doing everything, does not necessarily mean knowing and doing everything the same way all the time.  
I don't know if God is allperfect as men and books say, but even being perfect he may, I trust, change his way or manner of doing something, if he wishes.  
Indeed, God is not mistaken; but humans are not always either!    
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


53 posted 04-11-2004 12:54 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 is unlikely to happen, however, because bestiality, incest and polygamy are generally regarded as choices. No one chooses to be born black and there is a growing body of evidence that most don't choose to be gay. It is the absence of choice that determines discrimination.



This is where you are wrong.  There is no "growing body of evidence" that Homosexuality is comparable to being born black.  The "Genetics" are more than dubious as evidence for deterministic homosexuality.  

Ya know Ron, It's really hard to justify the belief that someone just wakes up one day and "chooses" to be an axe-murderer.  And yet, by your over-simplified definition and categories, incarceration of them would be just as "discriminatory".


If you can say all my problems with gay marriage are based upon morals, I can just as easily say that your whole defense of it is based upon the "They were born that way" urban legend.


Stephen      
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


54 posted 04-11-2004 02:55 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
This is where you are wrong.  There is no "growing body of evidence" that Homosexuality is comparable to being born black.  The "Genetics" are more than dubious as evidence for deterministic homosexuality.


There is evidence of homosexual activity in many species of birds(seagulls for instance) and mammals(including our closest genetic relative the Bonobo) which would indicate that homosexuality is a natural occurance not simply a human 'social disorder.'
aujussy wolf
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 08-09-2003
Posts 1215
Michigan


55 posted 04-11-2004 03:16 AM       View Profile for aujussy wolf   Email aujussy wolf   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for aujussy wolf

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I
want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint
income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of
marriage!!"

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


56 posted 04-11-2004 09:14 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The "Genetics" are more than dubious as evidence for deterministic homosexuality.

Who taught you to be heterosexual, Stephen? And lacking that or any other instruction, would you have then become gender neutral?

Even without the scientific evidence, which is strong but admittedly isn't (and probably never will be) certain, it is illogical to assume one sexual preference is genetic and another is not.

But it doesn't really matter, either. My personal history seems to suggest I have a slight preference for brunettes over blondes. Should I be denied that choice, whether it is genetic or learned, simply because you like redheads?

quote:
Ya know Ron, It's really hard to justify the belief that someone just wakes up one day and "chooses" to be an axe-murderer.

There aren't too many choices that aren't preceded by just waking up one day. That doesn't stop them from being choices.

Can you remember the day you woke up and decided to be heterosexual?

The difference, of course, is that the label axe-murderer is defined by the action, not by a state of being. You chose to be a Christian, even if that choice was the accumulation of a whole lot of little choices and a whole lot of waking up one day. You never chose your gender or, I believe, your sexual preference. More importantly, I think, of the three  things mentioned in this paragraph only one of them necessarily harms another human being. The others may or may not bring such harm, depending on future choices.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


57 posted 04-11-2004 06:06 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

well said
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


58 posted 04-12-2004 01:11 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Wait a minute, hold the phones.

'No one chooses to be born black and there is a growing body of evidence that most don't choose to be gay. It is the absence of choice that determines discrimination.'

Ron, I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to discriminate gainst people because they choose a way of life?

What about gay men who cross-dress? They may not choose to be gay... but they sure as hell do choose to put on some fake boobies and layer on the makeup. Is it okay to say "Hey, that's wrong" because they chose to do it?

I'm still also not entirely buying the whole genetics determine sexual behavior thing. Maybe it plays a part, maybe it doesn't.... that really doesn't matter to me, because EITHER WAY, I think it's wrong to discriminate. But I consider myself straight, but I'm not going to pretend that I haven't tested the waters on the other side, nor am I going to deny that the ossibility is still there that I will someday be attracted to a female. Ro put this more concretely...

When I was in high school one day I just said "screw it" and I shaved my head. Now, like I said, I consider myself heterosexual... but not a whole lot of heterosexual 18 year old girls shave their heads. Since I chose to wear my hair in a way that reminds people of lesbians, did I deserve to be told that I "looked like a dyke?"

The unspoken assumption in the 'they were born that way' argument is that if there was a choice... they are making the wrong one. In a perfect world without genetic flaws, we'd all choose to be straight.... but since their genetics dictate this behavior and they can't change it... we'll just have to live with it.

I don't buy that.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


59 posted 04-12-2004 09:43 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to discriminate gainst people because they choose a way of life?

Amy, I'm suggesting people should always be held accountable for their choices. Many will certainly consider that discrimination. Usually the ones who only believe in personal responsibility for everyone except themselves.

quote:
did I deserve to be told that I "looked like a dyke?"

If you put on a gown and diamond-laden tiara, would you deserve to be told you looked like a princess?

I don't know what a dyke looks like, but if you chose to assume the guise of one, either intentionally or by mistake, it's your responsibility. People generally change their appearance to get a reaction, and they certainly should be free to do so. The people reacting should be no less free. Verbalizing that reaction might not be polite, but I wouldn't consider it discriminatory.

If there was any discrimination in that scenario, I would have to say it was against lesbians. The label might well be inaccurate, but I fail to see why it should be offensive?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


60 posted 04-13-2004 12:20 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

So, because someone associates with a discriminated against group, discrimination against them isn't really against them, only the original group?

What about Atticus Finch?

Should he be held accountable for the racism in his town? Is it his fault for doing what he thought was right? And when his children suffered, was it really only black people who were being discriminated against?

If I CHOSE to date a woman, is it okay to discriminate against me, knowing full-well I've always dated men before and have the capacity (admittedly) to do so again? Should bisexual people be held accountable for their choice since, really, they can go either way... shouldn't they just make the "right" choice of hetero relationships?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


61 posted 04-13-2004 01:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Is it his fault for doing what he thought was right?

If one doesn't accept full responsibility for doing what they think is right, even when it turns out to be wrong, how can they ever accept credit for doing what *is* right?

Yes, it was his fault.

quote:
If I CHOSE to date a woman, is it okay to discriminate against me

If I happen to be married to the woman you're dating, you bet your assumptions I have a right to "discriminate" against you. You made a choice and every choice carries consequences. If you were demonstrably gay and chose to date my wife, it would still be a choice and not a life-style. There is a difference between dating women and dating a woman.

I think you are using the word discrimination a bit, uh, indiscriminately.

Discrimination, at least in my mind, isn't about what a person does, but rather is applied to what a person is. It is the difference between hurting someone for a valid reason and hurting them for no reason. It is the difference between punishing someone justly and punishing them just because we feel like it. It comes down to what I've said over and over and over in this forum over the past month.

No harm, no foul.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


62 posted 04-13-2004 06:38 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

I really don't understand, Ron.

What does being bisexual have to do with being bisexual with your wife? I think you're confusing the issues. Why should you care about some single woman choosing to date some other single woman... why is it any of your business just because it's chosen rather than biologically predestined?

Your 'who does it hurt' argument holds a lot more water than the genetics one... I fail to see, if it's determined that homosexuality is a choice, how it all of a sudden becomes harmful, and how all of a sudden they don't have a right to make that choice, unharrassed.

'Discrimination, at least in my mind, isn't about what a person does, but rather is applied to what a person is.'

Isn't what we do part of who we are... and doesn't who we are help determine what we do? I don't think they're inseperable... Stephen is a devoted Christian. Therefore, it's safe to say it's a long shot before we see him hopping into bed (or a marriage aisle) with another guy. As an agnostic, I see no great moral qualm with homosexuality, so I'm much more likely to act on a whim.... or attend a gay or lesbian marriage proudly.

My boyfriend was once a devoted Christian, but can't really bring himself to follow the faith as devoutly since he disagrees with Christianity's staunch anti-gay stance.

'It is the difference between hurting someone for a valid reason and hurting them for no reason. It is the difference between punishing someone justly and punishing them just because we feel like it.'

So if gays and lesbians choose to be gays and lesbians, it's just to prevent them from getting married? I really don't understand... either way, it's still a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman... why is it discrimination in one instance and not discrimination in another?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


63 posted 04-13-2004 06:42 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Sorry, had to add one more point.

So, when people started caling Atticus a nigger-lover, and when Bob Ewell tried to kill scout... really, what your saying is Atticus brought this all down upon himself and his family? You don't think the blame lies with, oh, I don't know... the people who were doing the discriminating?

There's a difference between being willing to accept the consequences of an action, and being willing to accept them blame.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


64 posted 04-13-2004 09:17 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
So if gays and lesbians choose to be gays and lesbians, it's just to prevent them from getting married? I really don't understand... either way, it's still a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman... why is it discrimination in one instance and not discrimination in another?

On the contrary, Amy, I've said several times that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a product of nature or nurture. Personally, I'm convinced it's nature for many, nurture for some, and a conscience choice for a brave few. Look just a little ways up this page and you'll see me say, "But it doesn't really matter, either. My personal history seems to suggest I have a slight preference for brunettes over blondes. Should I be denied that choice, whether it is genetic or learned, simply because you like redheads?"

It's a very fine semantic line, Amy, and you're certainly free to disagree. I am a heterosexual through design, not choice. If you punish me for being a heterosexual, you are punishing me for being who I am. That, to me, is discrimination, because no matter what I do or what choices I make, I will still be punished. On the other hand, if you punish me for loving a woman you are doing so based on an action and a choice. You felt I did something wrong. To me, that isn't discrimination, but rather is persecution. There are times when persecution is just. There are times when it's not (in which case, I will continue to ask over and over, "Who is being hurt?"). At no time that I can imagine, however, is discrimination EVER just.

The distinction between discrimination and persecution, I think, is an important one, though I know to many it will seem like picking nits. It's important because it helps define the opposition. If someone believes homosexuality is wrong, I will argue from now 'til hell freezes over in hopes of convincing them sexual preference, in and of itself, harms no one. However, if someone believes homosexuals are wrong, I know of no argument that will ever convince them otherwise. Persecution can be fought. Discrimination can only be squashed.

In summary, those who discriminate against gays are unjust, and same-sex marriage is just the tip of their iceberg. I can't imagine anything they could say that would convince me otherwise. Those who persecute gays and would stop them from marrying are equally unjust, in my opinion, but I'm willing to listen to their reasons. If they can demonstrate a harm comparable to the punishment they advocate, I'm not above changing my position. Persecution is a social tool that will continue to hold value as long as there are people who hurt other people.

quote:
There's a difference between being willing to accept the consequences of an action, and being willing to accept them blame.

This is sliding a bit off-topic, but I don't believe there is a difference, Amy. Poor Atticus certainly wasn't the *only* person culpable for their own actions, but nothing that influenced his decisions did anything to make his decisions any less his. If he was influenced, he allowed himself to be influenced. Should someone happen to hold a gun to your head and tell you to drink a fast acting poison, you might well find your choices limited and unattractive. But in the end, the person holding the gun is only responsible for their own actions, not for the choice you make. Whether the person with the gun pulls the trigger is up to him. Whether you drink the poison is up to you. Each of you can influence the other only to the extent the other permits it. You cannot ever absolve yourself of the blame (or credit) for your own actions, any more than you can ever accept the blame (or credit) for someone else's actions. That is the whole crux of personal responsibility.

We are no less responsible for difficult choices than we are for easy ones.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


65 posted 04-13-2004 09:59 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't have a problem with the concept Ron but a little with the wordsmithing.  The former application of persecution I'd find aprop -- sliding into 'just persecution' however I find a little unsettling.  

If it's justified -- it's regulation, or governance, supervision, superintendance -- persecution in abstract contains an element of torture and abuse.

We don't persecute a child molestor -- we prosecute him!  

ok.. back to work with me
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


66 posted 04-13-2004 11:06 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I understand, Reb, and I don't disagree. There were several places in my previous post where I wanted to use a noun and prosecutor came to mind, and I didn't use the a noun because that one wasn't quite right. There wasn't one that was quite right.

The problem is that I think the difference between persecution and prosecution is a subjective one, not necessarily a legal one. There are instances, I think, where someone is cruel but never breaks the law, and the social persecution they can face when their cruelty is uncovered is a just one. And there are other instance, far too many of them, when someone is prosecuted for little more than meeting a profile. Yes, there is a difference between persecution and prosecution. I'm just not all that certain I always know what it is.

Separate or together, persecution and prosecution are both the result of actions. Discrimination, I still think, is against a state of being.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


67 posted 04-13-2004 11:40 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If you are intimate and more than friends with someone of the same sex, but not sexually attracted to the same sex, are you still homosexual?  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


68 posted 04-14-2004 12:38 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

What exactly do you mean by intimate? If intimacy=sex then I suppose under it's definition:

adj : sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]

a person isn't a homosexual but experimental, however, as a defined in it's noun form

(n : someone who practices homosexuality)

the act itself is an 'homosexual' act.

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


69 posted 04-14-2004 02:42 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

No I mean no sexual engagement; but still much closer than friend;
Someone of the same sex, but he or she is only sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.  
Is that still homosexual?



Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


70 posted 04-14-2004 03:44 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Not that I know of?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


71 posted 04-14-2004 04:53 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
No I mean no sexual engagement; but still much closer than friend

There is something closer than a friend?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


72 posted 04-15-2004 10:19 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Ron: 'No one chooses to be born black and there is a growing body of evidence that most don't choose to be gay. It is the absence of choice that determines discrimination.'


Hush: Ron, I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to discriminate gainst people because they choose a way of life?



Hush,

I think you're seeing real discrepancies within Ron's argumentation.  


Here are his main lines of argument ...


1)  Discrimination equals limiting anyone based on something they can't help ... something that they don't choose, therefore being against Gay Marriage equals discrimination.


2)  Discrimination does not equal limiting someone for doing something which "hurts" someone else.


3)  Any Legal limitations on anything should not be based upon moral priniciples.






#1 is by no means proven.


#2 I agree with, though "hurting someone" can mean much more than immediate physical injury.


#3 cancels out # 2, since "not hurting someone" is, without question, a moral principle.
  





Though you also see contradictions in Ron's stance, I'm aware that you haven't come to the same conclusion as I have about the Gay Marriage issue.  But I want to question your overarching view of "discrimination" ...


Would you call refusing to give a pay check to a slothful person who refuses to work, discrimination?  It is, after all, limiting someone based on a chosen lifestyle.  It seems we have to "discriminate" against some actions or choices.  



Stephen.


Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


73 posted 04-15-2004 11:02 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

I am convinced that homosexuality is based on genetics. Of course, not all homosexuals are born that way. Some choose to dabble in same-sex relationships.

I ask any forum member these questions: Do you remember the point in time when you looked at a member of the opposite sex and felt a natural sexual attraction? Before that event occured, did you make a mental note to be attracted only to members of the opposite sex?

I was 5 years old when I noticed a female classmate of mine (kindergarten) and had my first (my first recollection, at least) feelings of a sexual attraction.

A homosexual man explained to me once that the same thing happened to him when he was a little boy, about the same age as I at the time of my first sexual attraction, except in his case, he felt sexually attracted to another boy.  

He didn't ask for that attraction to happen, he told me. It just did. It was natural for him.

One could call him a liar, but after listening to and watching him tell his story... he had no reason to lie.

Now, should we blame satan? His parents? Society? Or should he blame himself for having a natural attraction to and desiring a person of his own sex?

As much as I or any one else may be disgusted about what goes on behind closed doors between two men, and it does disgust me - that feeling of disgust should bear no weight in accepting into society what is natural for others when it does not harm society and if a majority helps it to become law.

It must be hypocritical of me to feel disgusted about two men because the thought of two women does not disgust me, but it is natural for me to think that way.


Now, about the biblical argument. Hogwash. There are numerous sexual "sins" described in the bible that are all eqaully lumped together. To deny the rights of one type of sexual sinner - the homosexual - would be to deny the rights of heterosexuals too.



"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


74 posted 04-15-2004 03:53 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
Now, about the biblical argument. Hogwash. There are numerous sexual "sins" described in the bible that are all eqaully lumped together. To deny the rights of one type of sexual sinner - the homosexual - would be to deny the rights of heterosexuals too.


To the extent that heterosexual sexual sins are no less sinful than homosexual sexual sins, I actually agree with you entirely.  For example, if someone asked me whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military, I'd probably ask whether adulterers are allowed in the military - in this I see no appreciable distinction beyond one being a breach of the marriage covenant and the other a breach of nature.  Both are sin and, as you know, sin is sin.

But Opeth, why should we be forced to assume that because something has a genetic basis it ought to be regarded as "normal."  With the same facts before us, one could just as easily argue that homosexuality is a sexual developmental disability.  Perhaps we ought to explore the ramifications of that possibility before assigning homosexuals the additional right to marry someone of the same sex.

Jim
 
 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