homosexual marriage - Page 2

Publisher · #16 May 11, '12, 3:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by belorg

People evolve, concepts evolve, so an appeal to history alone won't do it.
In most countries, people can be legally married without wanting children. So, it may have been historically so that marriage was live-giving etc. but nowadays this isn't always the case anymore.
So, what if the concept and the word marriage evolves into 'a legal union between two partners?'

Of course people can have dignity while not being married, but if there are no other arguments, why not let people choose how to have dignity?

Friend you speak my mind.

Hokomai · #17 May 11, '12, 4:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage". You can't marry your dog, and you can't marry someone of the same sex. It's not natural.

Biblically, there are passages sprinkled throughout condemning the act of homosexuality. It is clearly a sin in the Bible.

Homosexuals are not dogs, or comparable to dogs. This is offensive. Catholics also believe you cannot marry a previously-married person. Would you use the dog analogy if talking about whether it was acceptable for your married parents to remarry?

SonCatcher · #18 May 11, '12, 4:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Catholics also believe you cannot marry a previously-married person.

Incorrect. Catholics believe that you cannot marry a person who is currently married to someone else.

A person who was previously married (i.e. widowed) is certainly free to marry again. A person whose putative marriage was annulled is free to marry (for the first time).

PrayHarder · #19 May 11, '12, 10:19 pm

You could formulate some arguments around analogies:

Do you redefine driving laws because some people choose to drink and drive? After all, it's not fair that you have to be sober to drive because that discriminates against alcoholics. Do you hate someone who is an alcoholic because you tell them he/she can't drive? Redefining marriage would be like changing our driving laws to be more "fair" to drunk drivers.

Hokomai · #20 May 11, '12, 11:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrayHarder

You could formulate some arguments around analogies:

Do you redefine driving laws because some people choose to drink and drive? After all, it's not fair that you have to be sober to drive because that discriminates against alcoholics. Do you hate someone who is an alcoholic because you tell them he/she can't drive? Redefining marriage would be like changing our driving laws to be more "fair" to drunk drivers.

Drink driving is harmful. It kills and injures people and destroys property. Gays getting married harms no one.

CopticChristian · #21 May 11, '12, 11:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Drink driving is harmful. It kills and injures people and destroys property. Gays getting married harms no one.

Ho,

Gays getting married harms no one, in your opinion, based on what you think and believe. This is your opinion. Help me understand how you believe that it harms no one.

Hokomai · #22 May 12, '12, 1:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Ho,

Gays getting married harms no one, in your opinion, based on what you think and believe. This is your opinion. Help me understand how you believe that it harms no one.

Well I know a number of gay couples, some with children, some without, and I have yet to see harm result from these relationships, or at least, in no greater amount (less in fact) than in heterosexual unions. I have seen much good come from them. I know of no statistics on the overall results of homosexual relationships suggesting otherwise (or ones that withstand scrutiny). The act of getting married to Catholics is a sacrament. I think Catholics should be free to have their religious beliefs about marriage, and to practice them. But I do not think they should interfere with the laws regarding civil marriage. I think these should extend to all adults who are single either as a result of not being married, or divorce.

CopticChristian · #23 May 12, '12, 6:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Well I know a number of gay couples, some with children, some without, and I have yet to see harm result from these relationships, or at least, in no greater amount (less in fact) than in heterosexual unions. I have seen much good come from them. I know of no statistics on the overall results of homosexual relationships suggesting otherwise (or ones that withstand scrutiny). The act of getting married to Catholics is a sacrament. I think Catholics should be free to have their religious beliefs about marriage, and to practice them. But I do not think they should interfere with the laws regarding civil marriage. I think these should extend to all adults who are single either as a result of not being married, or divorce.

Ho,

So you are emperical and rational. What you know based on what you experience and what you know based on what you have reasoned leads you to this conclusion. You know of no statistical data so then if I produce some your rational side has hope.

sedonaman · #24 May 12, '12, 7:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabius

Another helpful link:

http://www.winst.org/family_marriage...I_Marriage.pdf

Good info. Thx.

Hokomai · #25 May 12, '12, 3:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Ho,

So you are emperical and rational. What you know based on what you experience and what you know based on what you have reasoned leads you to this conclusion. You know of no statistical data so then if I produce some your rational side has hope.

Yes indeed. Demonstrate to me that homosexual marriage produces more harm than good to the people involved, their children, or wider society, and I will oppose it. Of course, it has to be harm I agree is harm, and it has to result from the marriage, not the relationship.

CopticChristian · #26 May 12, '12, 6:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Yes indeed. Demonstrate to me that homosexual marriage produces more harm than good to the people involved, their children, or wider society, and I will oppose it. Of course, it has to be harm I agree is harm, and it has to result from the marriage, not the relationship.

Ho,

This is kind and generous. First let me ask you what the difference is between marriage and a relationship? Next let's address something else.

Do you believe that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes?

Do you believe that you were created or the big bang and no creation?

Do you believe in God or no God?

Do you believe life has a purpose or no purpose?

thank you..

Hokomai · #27 May 12, '12, 7:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Ho,

This is kind and generous. First let me ask you what the difference is between marriage and a relationship? Next let's address something else.

Marriage is a formally recognised sexual relationship with some expectation of continuation. Beyond that marriage has varied in its exact form across human societies. I think that for society to exist without conflict needs some regulation of sexual behaviour, and that marriage is one way by which this is achieved.

Do you believe that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes?

Yes, if adult, but they should be discouraged because nicotine is addictive, and cigarettes shorten life, and lead to a lower quality of physical life on average for n extended number of years.

Do you believe that you were created or the big bang and no creation?
In general I have not seen anything that requires the idea of a "creator" to explain it. I have no views on 'the big bang', although it is obvious the universe is expanding.

Do you believe in God or no God?

I know of nothing which requires the idea of a God to explain it, or for which the existence of a god(s) is the most simple explanation. I think that God and god(s) exist as a social reality, and that belief in them may be an inevitable result of the way our brains evolved, and may even have been adaptive. This does not mean I think such a being exists, just that it is possible we evolved in such a way that we tend to think god(s) exist. Sort of like we evolved to be subject to optical illusions.

Do you believe life has a purpose or no purpose?

If by 'purpose' you mean something thought up by a creator, then clearly no. I think that most life has clear functions and relations to other parts of life, and that much life is dependent on other life for existence. I think that as a result of our ability to be self-aware, humans are able to make choices within biological limits, and that we can form purpose. I certainly think I have a purpose, but it is one developed from my community, not given to me by a god(s).

thank you..

CopticChristian · #28 May 12, '12, 7:35 pm

Ho,

You editorialize and explain. Simple yes and no will do. Is this a good summary?

So you believe that marriage is a sexual relationship, should continue, and its purpose is to regulate sexual behavior.

You believe that smoking is OK for adults.

You appear not to believe in God and believe in evolution.

You do not believe life has purpose rather it has function. That function/purpose is externally determined.

Is this correct?

Hokomai · #29 May 12, '12, 8:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Ho,

You editorialize and explain. Simple yes and no will do. Is this a good summary?

So you believe that marriage is a sexual relationship, should continue, and its purpose is to regulate sexual behavior.

I think I would say 'its positive social function is to regulate behaviour and create a positive environment for children'

You believe that smoking is OK for adults.

No, I think what I said explained my position more clearly than this summary.

You appear not to believe in God and believe in evolution.

I try to avoid belief. I have not concluded there is a God. there is no need to 'believe' in evolution. It is an obvious fact, demonstrated beyond doubt by the existence of dna and other genetic material which is transmitted only by descent, and is shared between all species.

You do not believe life has purpose rather it has function. That function/purpose is externally determined.

No, to the extent to which life has purpose (determined by humans) or function (determined by adaptation) that function/purpose is not externally determined (or caused, I would prefer to say)

Is this correct?

Note quite there yet. Awaiting the next stage with interest!

sedonaman · #30 May 13, '12, 6:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Yes indeed. Demonstrate to me that homosexual marriage produces more harm than good to the people involved, their children, or wider society, and I will oppose it. Of course, it has to be harm I agree is harm, and it has to result from the marriage, not the relationship.

The problem with this requirement is that lightning almost never strikes someone the instant he commits a grave sin. An even if it did, there are those who would say it was just a coincidence. So this requirement cannot be met because the type of harm done by SS"M" will be over long periods of time, something we can't prove using a scientific experiment, but using reason instead. Of course some will disagree with the reason, mainly because they want their own faulty reason to be true. However, look at all the liberal ideas, and tell me how many of them work.

_________________
The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.