facepalm.gif

Here's what I don't get about the religiously motivated haters. If they are indeed right, i.e., that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gays are going to hell, why is legislation about this needed? It's not like Christians are going to be punished for others' ghey luv and it's not like gays can escape God's judgment.

If God is indeed all powerful why do you care if a gay couple is married or is scissoring or anything?

Because judgement is mine sayeth believers, not the lords.

Can someone just list a few already ffs? Ones free of Biblical quotes please.

I tried to pretend that I'm against gay marriage and this is what I came up with.

In order for me to antigay to the extent that I'd need to legislate against homosexuals, I'd have to believe that homosexuality is a sickness and that allowing gays to marry would be promoting sickness. Do you want to promote AIDS?

I can't come up with anything else right now.

Because h_m_ is derogatory.

Still pushing for heauxmeaux as the preferred bypass spelling.

Hm, is this the case in America only or is it also the case in the UK and Ireland? Raz?

You don't see it much, but yeah, 'h_m_' just on its own would be a term of abuse here.

Borderline trolling. Post one reason or gtfo.

Next thing people will be claiming that saying "I am against women having the right to vote", is anti-women!

Seriously, wtf debate in pm? The whole point of this thread is to have it out so that everyone can see the facts and arguments. That idea can't possibly be a non-troll.

BTW, showing up in a public discussion forum thread and claiming you have the answer to a question people want answered but bailing out because you are afraid of getting criticized is pretty close to dictionary defintion of "coward". Not sure what it coming from a keyboard has to do with anything, if you give me your phone number I can call and tell you though Dogggg.

I actively do not spend time around people who are closed-minded, racist, bigots, spew hateful speech, anti-semitic, overly religious, etc etc etc.

I usually open my mouth and express my opionions, very pointedly and confrontationally, I might add, unless I'm in a work environment, where I've learned to just keep my mouth shut.

People say stupid things, and I make sure I tell them how stupid it is. I've heard people say the Holocaust was made up, and I've spoken up and said it was probably the worst event in human history, with unbelieveable amounts of documentation verifing it, and if they truly believed that line of thought they are truly stupid.

I don't like when people talk bad about sexual orientation, minorities, whatever, in a hateful way. Maybe I'm just getting more disagreeable in my older years, but I just don't have time for any intolerance. It's 2011, Christ, that's enough already.

Maybe one day more people will have the courage to speak up and tell people they are what they really are - closed-minded stupid bigots.

And if I'm a "bigot against bigots" (lol), then all the better.

The purpose of marriage is to facilitate the bearing and raising of children, which are what the reproductive organs which distinguish men and women are ordered towards. The point is that sexual activity between a man and a woman is naturally ordered towards reproduction, even in cases where a medical problem (in the man or the woman) is an obstacle to pregnancy.

This is like saying that the teacher-student relationship is primarily ordered towards the education of the student. This isn't a guarantee that the student will successfully learn what he needs to learn, either because the teacher messes up in some way or because the student fails in some way, not necessarily for reasons within his control. But is such a relationship no longer a relationship of teacher and student? Obviously such relationships are not permanent and aren't formalized in the way that marriage is, but my point is only that successful attainment of what a partnership aims at doesn't mean it isn't that kind of partnership.

Even people who happen to be infertile still perform an act that is naturally ordered towards having children. That's why their infertility can be classified as a medical problem to begin with: they perform the sexual act but the woman doesn't get pregnant. It's like a teacher-student relationship (which is real even prior to its successful result) where the student doesn't learn, for whatever reason.

But on the other hand, two people who know everything on a subject can't be teachers to one another, and two people who are totally ignorant can't teach one another. Similarly (and I realize this is a limping analogy) two men can't marry each other, and two women can't marry each other.

I've wondered this many times before, but from where do we get the notion of human rights and its relationship to marriage? Why should marriage be a human rights issue? (I'll admit that I don't actually think marriage itself is a fundamental human right.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "wanting an arranged marriage." In societies in which arranged marriages are the norm, that's basically THE way you get married while remaining a member of society. I don't know how you would *want* it.

human right or civil right, I think every person has the right to choose to marry or not marry whoever they want (above legal age of consent, ldo). Therefore forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to (i.e. an arranged marriage) would be wrong and also not allowing someone to marry someone they do want to would also be wrong.

Sure, marriage is a societal construct and thus is not a human right, but once you start offering the practice to people it is wrong to deny others it because you don't want them to get to do it. I think that makes it a civil right, correct?

A serious link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMHisTmIfyM

and a bunch of funny ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWqtpqQjNug&t=4m8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiDyMSjuvm0

Once same sex marriage is legalized, schools have to teach that same sex marriage is not only legal but normal. Of course they have to do this before children are "poisoned" by the history of marriage being one man one woman - so they have to begin teaching this in elementary school. Children are sexualized in the name of protecting adults. Teaching children under 8 about sex, sex preferences, gender identity etc opens them up to questions and teachings they would otherwise just be allowed to play dolls or cowboys and Indians etc etc

so I ask you to think about what you want your children taught and at what age you want it taught... do you want your prepubescent kids asked if they have same sex feelings? and if they do that's good and normal and even encouraged....
myself I'd prefer to let the parents have access to good teaching methods and have parents allowed to decide what their very young children are taught... if I had young ones. I'd home school

I actually didn't even use the word purpose in my original post; you're the one who first introduced it, when you said that the primary purpose of skin was not to be an art canvas. I assumed you were trying to capture what I had been saying, especially when you went on to say that you agreed that the primary purpose of the reproductive organs is reproduction.

At no point have I been talking about a purpose as a subjective psychological intention, and I've clarified that already. I've been talking about what result or goal the reproductive organs and the sexual (or reproductive) act are ordered towards as their natural, biological result.

To admit that the biological purpose of the reproductive organ is reproduction (as you have already admitted) but deny that sexual activity is similarly ordered towards reproduction is just non-sense. You have to be willing to deny the former to deny the latter.

Okay, you didn't even look at the definitions section, got it.

maudeflanders.gif

Enlighten me, what does "teaching gay marriage" entail? Seems to me it would just go something like "gay marriage is a union between two same sex partners" Is there more to it than that?

I really think "what will I tell my children"? Is just about the lamest argument on the planet. Tell them that two men or women who love each other can join together just like a man and a women can.... end. Wouldn't it be better to let your child know that these things exist as opposed to sheltering them?

Also RE: History of Marriage. Yes, by and large that has been the historical definition... we are now realizing it is wrong to exclude certain people from joining together in this way so we're changing it. Social evolution occurs all the time, its how we got to where we are today

Its not. Thats why government should be removed form the marriage game.

The point was, what does function have to do with allowed uses? What is the primary function of the mouth? Should singing be outlawed? Nature is very flexible. Most things have multiple uses. Do you agree that sex is physically and psychologically enjoyable? What do you think the "biological purpose" of that is?

Also, do you think fertility tests should be mandatory to obtain a marriage license? What about a clause entailing automatic divorce if no children are produced in, say, the first couple years of marriage?

But, if the sole reason for marriage is procreation, then it follows from your reasoning, that infertile people should not get married, no matter what the reason for their infertility is. There is no avoiding this conclusion, no matter how you try to make it sit. It doesnt matter that they " perform an act that is naturally ordered towards having children" , they arent going to have any, therefore shouldnt be able to get married.
Your analogy is pretty weak,as you say, and you left out the most analogous situation, the teacher who is able to teach, and the student who is totally unable to learn. If this relationship is about learning then there is no point these two getting together as no learning will take place.

You do realise that marriage is a human construct right? Its not a law of the universe.

And your kids would grow just like their parent. Tell me, in which grade were you taught ANYTHING about marriage and WHY would they have to teach about same sex relationships and WHY would you have a problem with this stuff being tought at school and WHAT IF your baby boy turned out gay(cuz we all know that's the REAL problem)?

At no point yet have I actually argued that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be in committed relationships that are officially recognized as life-long by the state and endowed with certain privileges. (I would argue that, but I haven't done so here.) I am only arguing about what marriage is, from the distinctive character of the relationship between a man and a woman that has its foundation in their reproductive biology.

No, fertility tests should not be mandatory in order to obtain a marriage license, if for no other reason than because that would be further over-reaching by the state than already occurs in these matters. A legal presumption of fertility is not unreasonable. As for a rule that terminates a marriage after some period of time; on a personal level I'm glad there's no such thing, as my wife and I tried for almost four years before our son came along.

I've already noted, on this issue, that my point is only that the sexual act is naturally ordered towards reproduction and that marriage is the committed relationship in which that activity can be rightly ordered towards both bearing and raising children. This does not exclude people with infertility problems from getting married. However, I would counsel most people with known fertility problems against marriage: if they want children, they'll be frustrated; if they don't want children, then they shouldn't be getting married.