Homosexual marriage

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The thread 'Elton John's suggestion' has been merged into the thread 'Homosexual marriage'.

Going back a few pages, I'm glad I missed that one...

I think the ability to know what you're signing under for is crucial here. You're comparing gays to animals?

Don't be absurd. Look at what she quoted.

[MrBishop]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

I sort of dissagree with the people who put child molestation and homosexuality on the same level. Yes, I agree they're both wrong, but the crime is different.
And so I was thinking about it today, and I had to wonder: Why is it that America has laws on incest? If a parent is molesting a child, yes, that is wrong. But, using the argument of some people here in favour of homosexuality, why should it be forbidden between two adults? What makes that wrong and homosexuality right, seeing as in both cases the people would be only pursuing happiness?
I just wanted to throw that in as a thought. *shrug*

The rules on incest tend to reflect the biological reality of inbreeding and the birth-defects associated with it, as opposed to a social construct of right vs. wrong.

Incest is considered wrong because of two things
1) It's a gene-pool nightmare, causing regressive genes to come forward in higher numbers and rates of occurrence
2) We (as animals) are effectively hardwired not to seek a mate too close to our own gene-pool.

Pure homosexuality, on the other hand, is (without medical intervention) a genetic dead-end.

Same-sex marriage (getting back to topic) is a great way of countering many of the negative stereotypes of homosexuals (males in particular). Specifically those of multiple partners and unsafe sex. Same-sex marriage, not unlike 'straight' marriage, if taken seriously...will reduce the number of partners to one and (providing that both partners are healthy) make sexual contact safe, thus reducing HIV/AIDS transmission rates a great deal.

The ABC's (Abstain, Be faithful, Condoms) work for same-sex couples as well as for het couples, eh.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Going back a few pages, I'm glad I missed that one...



Don't be absurd. Look at what she quoted.

I did. I'd think understanding what you're signing under for should be a major part in signing a marriage contract (it's implied in the institution itself, consent being a major element), and her reply would then suggest gays aren't any more able to understand it than dogs.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by MrBishop

...2) We (as animals) are effectively hardwired not to seek a mate too close to our own gene-pool.

I disagree. I think it's something that has been programmed into us by society. And as for being hardwired, I have at least one comment: Who hardwired us?

Pure homosexuality, on the other hand, is (without medical intervention) a genetic dead-end.

And this is supposed to be good, biologically speaking, for society?

Same-sex marriage (getting back to topic) is a great way of countering many of the negative stereotypes of homosexuals (males in particular). Specifically those of multiple partners and unsafe sex. Same-sex marriage, not unlike 'straight' marriage, if taken seriously...will reduce the number of partners to one and (providing that both partners are healthy) make sexual contact safe, thus reducing HIV/AIDS transmission rates a great deal.

That's rediculous. The more you tell people that it is their right to have sex with whomever they are attracted to (opposite gender, same gender, married, unmarried), the less they are going to feel inclined to be faithful to only one person.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

I sort of dissagree with the people who put child molestation and homosexuality on the same level. Yes, I agree they're both wrong, but the crime is different.
And so I was thinking about it today, and I had to wonder: Why is it that America has laws on incest? If a parent is molesting a child, yes, that is wrong. But, using the argument of some people here in favour of homosexuality, why should it be forbidden between two adults? What makes that wrong and homosexuality right, seeing as in both cases the people would be only pursuing happiness?
I just wanted to throw that in as a thought. *shrug*

In terms of incest, if it involved adults and if it was consentual, it is very hard to make an argument against it. It can cause birth defects, but it doesn't always cause them, and we allow heterosexuals to marry one another even if one of them has an obvious genetic disease that they may pass on to a child.

I am not really sure on the laws, but I don't think the actual act of incest is illegal. Or, if it is, it's like the old sodomy laws that may be on the books, but are never enforced.

Basically, in practice, homosexuality is not illegal and neither is incest or polygamy. The law only comes in when the act is not consensual, or it involves minors. Or, if they try to "legalize" the union.

So, the question is: If we don't make an act illegal (i.e. homosexual "marriage" off the books as it exists now), why shouldn't we recognize it?

The real answer is that it makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

My answer to that question is that the government should simply get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage in the social realm only as it already exists now for all kinds of relationships.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

That's rediculous. The more you tell people that it is their right to have sex with whomever they are attracted to (opposite gender, same gender, married, unmarried), the less they are going to feel inclined to be faithful to only one person.

I don't agree with that. Faithfulness to a partner comes from the inside. To me, being sexually faithful just because you think it is morally wrong to not be faithful isn't really being faithful at all.

It's like that cheesy Richard Bach quote.

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were.

But seriously, being sexually faithful to another person isn't really about sex at all, it's about love.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But seriously, being sexually faithful to another person isn't really about sex at all, it's about love.

What's that?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

What's that?

Love is staying home with your sweetie, when you'd rather be out with your buddies playing some pool and having a few beers, and ending up watching some romance movie, when you can't stand romance movies, and actually enjoying it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Love is staying home with your sweetie, when you'd rather be out with your buddies playing some pool and having a few beers, and ending up watching some romance movie, when you can't stand romance movies, and actually enjoying it.

Well I've never endured such torture yet

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

I disagree. I think it's something that has been programmed into us by society.

I think its both. Or else how would you explain why it occurs among animals as well?

And as for being hardwired, I have at least one comment: Who hardwired us?

Evolution of course.

And this is supposed to be good, biologically speaking, for society?

Does everyone need to breed for it to be "good" for society? Of course not. Most people need to play a support role. Elderly. Non mated. Homosexual... Thats how our species best raises its offspring. You also see the same thing in nature. If every single human was breeding rather then supporting we would be much worse off.

That's rediculous. The more you tell people that it is their right to have sex with whomever they are attracted to (opposite gender, same gender, married, unmarried), the less they are going to feel inclined to be faithful to only one person.

How is telling someone you can marry one person telling them its their right to have sex with whomever they are attracted to? They are already allowed to have sex with whomever they are attracted to NOW. Its just they cant marry so they continue to have sex with whoever they are attracted to rather then having sex with their marriage partner only. How counter productive...

[MrBishop]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

I disagree. I think it's something that has been programmed into us by society. And as for being hardwired, I have at least one comment: Who hardwired us?


And this is supposed to be good, biologically speaking, for society?


That's rediculous. The more you tell people that it is their right to have sex with whomever they are attracted to (opposite gender, same gender, married, unmarried), the less they are going to feel inclined to be faithful to only one person.

1) So what you're saying is that incest was fine until it was deemed socially unacceptable...that it never would've occured to us to abstain from incest until it 'got out of vogue' to do so? As for who programmed us.... natural selection did, of course. If you inbreed, your siblings get unhealthy and your genes aren't passed on as well as those who roamed outside their immediate family.

2) Good? Perhaps you should re-read what i was replying to before breathing my words into me.

3) Marriage promotes stability, right? One partner, as opposed to just any partner. Why should this be any different for same-sex couples than for het couples? *Hell, it can only be better considering the divorce rate amongst het-couples as of late*

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think its both. Or else how would you explain why it occurs among animals as well?

I was being more than half sarcastic when I said that incest was programmed into us by society. I was using an argument that some have made for homosexuality, saying that it being wrong is only an idea of society that needs to be changed.

Evolution of course.

Have you ever read Chesterton? ...But I'll not get into that right now, tempting as it is. It seems to me that any topic on which Christians are called to defend any one of their positions involves them defending at least two more.

Does everyone need to breed for it to be "good" for society? Of course not. Most people need to play a support role. Elderly. Non mated. Homosexual... Thats how our species best raises its offspring. You also see the same thing in nature. If every single human was breeding rather then supporting we would be much worse off.

I agree with the statement that not everyone needs to 'breed', or produce. But may I ask: where in nature have we seen homosexual animals?

How is telling someone you can marry one person telling them its their right to have sex with whomever they are attracted to? They are already allowed to have sex with whomever they are attracted to NOW. Its just they cant marry so they continue to have sex with whoever they are attracted to rather then having sex with their marriage partner only. How counter productive...

The degradation of society is what I am talking about; the degredation of morals:
First a thing is not allowed at all.
Then gradually it is brought out as something 'not so bad'.
It is accepted.
Then it's allowed.

First you tell people that they may only have sex with a spouse (of the opposite gender), and if they divorce that spouse, they're socially unacceptable. Then, morality slackens, and they may have sex after a certain age, with as many partners as they like (only we reccommend you keep that number to a minimum). Not only this, but if you decide that you don't like the sexual partner that you chose for life--married--you can get a divorce and not be rejected socially. Also, about this time homosexuals start coming out of the shadows. "If it's okay for the rest of the world to have sex with whoever they want, then it's okay for us." It quickly changes to "If they can get married, so can we."

Also: Marriage does nothing for commitment. There are couples of my personal aquaintence who have been together for years, faithful and exclusive, who aren't married. They are committed. On the other hand there are many more people of my aquaintence who have been married and divorced multiple times. As the growing statistics (which are brought up quite a bit here) show, the institute of marriage is doing precious little for commitment.

[Tessar]

I just thought I'd offer my two cents on a few things that have been said or implied.


I'm gay, but I am not promiscuous. I go out of my way to dress modestly. I can't say the same for 9/10ths of the other men I see on the street, gay or straight.

And as for encouraging people to come out who had been supressing the urge... why shouldn't they be encouraged? You can't suppress something like that and be happy. Believe me, I tried for years, and it makes you physically ill and you start to become ashamed of who you are to the point that you're ready to kill yourself to escape that.

Or, in the case of most of the men I met on a Catholic support board, you marry a woman. Oh, or you start considering the slightest thought of another man as a sledgehammer to your soul.

I know not all men end up like that, but it certainly seemed a good majority of them ended up like that.

It is not. just. about. sex. It's an urge to have the companionship and unconditional love that you have from someone to where you'll do things for them that you'd rather not do, and be involved in their interests when you would rather be home watching TV. Sex is a part of that, but considering how many people just go and have random sex, and then the people who are in relationships where they cannot have sex for medical reasons, etc.... I fail to consider it the defining factor.


And believe me, I've seen both sides of the argument quite well considering that I live in an Ultra-conservative 100% Right Wing Republican family of traditional Roman Catholics.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

I agree with the statement that not everyone needs to 'breed', or produce. But may I ask: where in nature have we seen homosexual animals?

Everywhere (it's found in at least 1 500 animals, according to a recent study)

The degradation of society is what I am talking about; the degredation of morals:
First a thing is not allowed at all.
Then gradually it is brought out as something 'not so bad'.
It is accepted.
Then it's allowed.

First you tell people that they may only have sex with a spouse (of the opposite gender), and if they divorce that spouse, they're socially unacceptable. Then, morality slackens, and they may have sex after a certain age, with as many partners as they like (only we reccommend you keep that number to a minimum). Not only this, but if you decide that you don't like the sexual partner that you chose for life--married--you can get a divorce and not be rejected socially. Also, about this time homosexuals start coming out of the shadows. "If it's okay for the rest of the world to have sex with whoever they want, then it's okay for us." It quickly changes to "If they can get married, so can we."

"First you tell people that they may only marry people of the same colour. Then, moral slackens, ..."
This kind of reasoning can't be used as an argument in itself.

[hectorberlioz]

I don't care what animals are gay, or not. Since when do we take our orders from dogs?

I believe that God made laws that rein in certain natures, whether it is "natural" (impulsive, whatever) to do it or not may be beside the point.
I guess that pretty much ends this discussion without going into the evolution/creation debate....

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I just thought I'd offer my two cents on a few things that have been said or implied.


I'm gay, but I am not promiscuous. I go out of my way to dress modestly. I can't say the same for 9/10ths of the other men I see on the street, gay or straight.



And believe me, I've seen both sides of the argument quite well considering that I live in an Ultra-conservative 100% Right Wing Republican family of traditional Roman Catholics.

I would like your opinion on gay marriage.

[Tessar]

I think it should be allowed, since I have yet to hear an argument that suggests to me that it would hurt society in any way.

I believe it would likely be of great help and comfort to those who have been living together as a couple but been unable to get actual recognition of that fact, and get the benefits few though they might be, that the law provides for married people.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So, the question is: If we don't make an act illegal (i.e. homosexual "marriage" off the books as it exists now), why shouldn't we recognize it?

Marriage is not merely the recognition of an act.

Originally Posted by Tessar

And believe me, I've seen both sides of the argument quite well considering that I live in an Ultra-conservative 100% Right Wing Republican family of traditional Roman Catholics.

What exactly do you mean by "traditional"?

Originally Posted by Tessar

It is not. just. about. sex. It's an urge to have the companionship and unconditional love that you have from someone to where you'll do things for them that you'd rather not do, and be involved in their interests when you would rather be home watching TV. Sex is a part of that

Not necessarily. It seems that what you have described could easily be any half-decent friendship.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Marriage is not merely the recognition of an act.

I'm speaking about legal recognition.

What exactly do you mean by "traditional"?

Strict following of the pope's and bishops' words, which doesn't happen in all 'Catholic' churches any more, we sing old music (Bach, Byrd, etc. No Glory and Worship), the church building is decorated in the style of older churches and not in the new minimalist look, and the priest faces the altar during the mass.

Not necessarily. It seems that what you have described could easily be any half-decent friendship.

Yes, it could, but it's also something more. It's about commitment to another (-one-) person on a level that's more than just friendship. A certain amount of friendship is helpful, yes, but the term 'I can love you, but I don't have to like you,' comes to mind. Because it's not only about having a good time, all of the time, with that person.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Strict following of the pope's and bishops' words, which doesn't happen in all 'Catholic' churches any more, we sing old music (Bach, Byrd, etc. No Glory and Worship), the church building is decorated in the style of older churches and not in the new minimalist look, and the priest faces the altar during the mass.

Try most Catholic churches in the United States!
Is it a Tridentine Mass? One doesn't often find a Novus Ordo Mass where the priest faces the altar.
I'm glad that's what you mean; I've actually heard "traditional" applied both to cultural Catholics, and to your average "Glory and Worship" "Breaking Bread", or Hausen mass. If I may ask, do you still consider yourself a traditional Catholic, or a Catholic?

Yes, it could, but it's also something more. It's about commitment to another (-one-) person on a level that's more than just friendship. A certain amount of friendship is helpful, yes, but the term 'I can love you, but I don't have to like you,' comes to mind. Because it's not only about having a good time, all of the time, with that person.

It's not only about having a good time with friends, either. I know a lot of what I do with a friend of mine is to listen to his woes. And as for "love you, but not necessarily like you", it seems to me that that is the proper attitude for all mankind.