Marriage.

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Can I just ask the irony of a god that is all benevolent but hates people who aren't basically exactly what God wants them to be? God is pretty picky with who he wants to be benevolent to. This is why using strict Bible readings to say gay marriage is wrong and women belong in the kitchen or whatever doesn't work. Because it strips the most basic idea that God is loving when he basically condones homophobia and misogyny. The bible was written for another time.

 

[Sopheria]

Ok. I would prefer if homosexuals didn't adopt. Please don't take offense! It is a negative influence. If i believe homosexuality is a sin, why would I want more homosexuals in the world? Again, please don't take offense. We were created to have man and women intercourse, not same-sex marriage, etc. if everyone was a homosexual, the world would end. No more babies, no more human race. How are my actions and beliefs causing more immorality? It would be the opposite. We are taught to love each other and have someone to look up to and follow. Others are taught they came from a rock. Seriously, that is the stuff taught in science books. That is a different discussion. We do not force our religion on children. It is our choice to make. I have free will to decide to be a homosexual, murderer, or other bad things.

At the moment, in most states in the United States (and to my knowledge most of the rest of the Western world), there's nothing stopping gays from raising children, whether they're married or not. Even if you believe that homosexuality is wrong and that gay parents shouldn't adopt and raise children, since they're going to do it anyway, don't you think it'd be better for them to be able to get married? Forget about the supposed sin that the parents are committing, think about it from the perspective of the child: wouldn't it be better for the child if his parents were able to get married?

Another thing to consider from the perspective of the child, what do you think is better for him/her? To get adopted by a loving couple who happen to be of the same gender, or to stay in foster care or the child welfare system and never have a proper family?

Most of the scientific studies that I've seen show that parenting by same sex couples has no measurable negative effect on child rearing. There was one study that showed that there was a difference, but in that case most of the negative effects were due to the lack of a stable family environment, which is likely due to the fact that their parents weren't legally allowed to get married.

So like I said in my first post, marriage is a good thing in society because it creates a more stable family environment for raising children. This applies to both opposite sex couples and same sex couples.

Here's the studies I was talking about:

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

(you need a medscape account for this one, but in case you have one, here it is)
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

 

[Dakotah]

Can I just ask the irony of a god that is all benevolent but hates people who aren't basically exactly what God wants them to be? God is pretty picky with who he wants to be benevolent to. This is why using strict Bible readings to say gay marriage is wrong and women belong in the kitchen or whatever doesn't work. Because it strips the most basic idea that God is loving when he basically condones homophobia and misogyny. The bible was written for another time.

What is more interesting is that there are actually Christians out there who think that God hates his own creations. If homosexuals are born the way they are and that homosexuality isn't a choice (which it isn't), then to condemn homosexuals as being immoral is to in fact condemn God's own creations!

 

[Sopheria]

What is more interesting is that there are actually Christians out there who think that God hates his own creations. If homosexuals are born the way they are and that homosexuality isn't a choice (which it isn't), then to condemn homosexuals as being immoral is to in fact condemn God's own creations!

In fairness, I don't think BadPokemon was saying that his god hates homosexuals, just that he condemns their behavior and their desires. I'm not agreeing with it, just saying I don't get the impression that that's what he's saying.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

What is more interesting is that there are actually Christians out there who think that God hates his own creations. If homosexuals are born the way they are and that homosexuality isn't a choice (which it isn't), then to condemn homosexuals as being immoral is to in fact condemn God's own creations!

This is an excellent point.

It's suddenly bizarre how if you take something literally that really shouldn't be taken literally (like the Bible) how contradictory it becomes. It's important to remember that some stories in the Bible are several thousand years old, and have not been "retrofitted" for the times. Thus, the ideals written in the Bible show ideals that are not existent nowadays, and considering that the Bible has been scribed and translated by men, it shows that their own prejudices can leak through even if God was the original authour of the text.

Nonetheless, I highly doubt that BadPokemon reads the entire Bible literally since there are many contradictions as mentioned earlier and uses cherry picking to support his own prejudices.

 

[Poki]

Y'know, if I ever get married, it will definitely not be in a stereotypical way.

I don't plan on getting married, though. A kickass relationship would do the job just fine.

 

[Entermaid]

Ok. I would prefer if homosexuals didn't adopt. Please don't take offense! It is a negative influence. If i believe homosexuality is a sin, why would I want more homosexuals in the world? Again, please don't take offense. We were created to have man and women intercourse, not same-sex marriage, etc. if everyone was a homosexual, the world would end. No more babies, no more human race. How are my actions and beliefs causing more immorality? It would be the opposite. We are taught to love each other and have someone to look up to and follow. Others are taught they came from a rock. Seriously, that is the stuff taught in science books. That is a different discussion. We do not force our religion on children. It is our choice to make. I have free will to decide to be a homosexual, murderer, or other bad things.


Having sex with another man if you are a man and same with women is what it is saying. That is the sin.

Again, homosexuals will continue to homosexuals, meaning have sex with homosexuals. Studies show homosexuality, in thought, cannot be converted to heterosexuality. A slew of psychology studies demonstrate that gay parents do not yield more gay children. So this argument that you don't want more homosexuals in the world doesn't make sense. How would denying marriage and adoption abilities increase homosexuality? The rest of your poorly constructed argument rests upon this point. You haven't demonstrated how this policy change in marriage and adoption would increase the homosexual population.

Therefore, with the homosexual population as it stands, why not make choices that improve the millions of other point of morality, again, as dictated by conventional and long-withstanding institutions? Improving the lives of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Your proposition, as I explained earlier, harms all groups, homosexual or not, in a variety of systemic ways. That is greater sin if we are to attempt to quantify:

Same number of homosexuals having sex (list of negative consequences I listed in the other post) < Same number of homosexuals having sex, developing long term relationships, adopting children (abused/beaten/neglected in the Foster Care System), improve relations between religious/nonreligious groups, decrease polarization of politics, ect.

One stance promotes immorality by focusing on one unchangeable factor.

Oh, and a fun fact sheet of Foster Care outcomes, well just a few of them:

Well, have fun arguing:
Foster Care > Homosexual Adoptive Parents (high standards of medical, criminal, financial screening)


Also, we don't have free will for our race, religion, thought processes, anything. We have inherit qualities that interact with an environment. In fact, most people don't choose to not be a christian. We inherit social convention, laws, and customs of our society and operate by those conventions, including religious beliefs. How, for instance, is a Chinese citizen choosing not be a Christian? They have not reified Christian doctrine passed down by parents, and further, they are likely to have been taught Christianity is wrong. So, no one, operates under the control of their own "free will" whether we are talking psychopaths, Christians, homosexuals, heterosexuals, ect, in the choices we make. Social structure and customs, taking into account the natural qualities possessed by a variety of people, is how choices and behaviors develop. We should make policy changes based on this knowledge to improve relationships between genetic qualities (homosexuality) and legal statutes/conventions.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Can I just ask the question that's on everyone's minds? Who cares if gay guys marry together? How does it affect you if two gay guys (or gals) decide to get married? And if it doesn't affect you, then what right do you have to control something that doesn't affect you, or another person outside of the relationship for that matter, at all?

Why does it matter what some random person that doesn't interact with your life have anything to do with your existence?

On homosexuals adopting it would be really nice if homosexuals were allowed to adopt and essentially rescue children in foster care, because that ♥♥♥♥ is insane and nasty. Everyone I know who was in one had PTSD. There's some crazy ♥♥♥♥ going on in them and I will guarantee you that any perceived issue with homosexuals rearing a child are absolutely overshadowed by the horrors that go on in foster care.

 

[Entermaid]

What is more interesting is that there are actually Christians out there who think that God hates his own creations. If homosexuals are born the way they are and that homosexuality isn't a choice (which it isn't), then to condemn homosexuals as being immoral is to in fact condemn God's own creations!

Well, to be fair, God creates homosexuals, heterosexuals, psychopaths, sociopaths, and the likes of people such as Hilter, Stalin, and Miley Cyrus.

Whether homosexuality is wrong or right because it is or is not natural, is all a bit irreverent.

Though, you make a good point as far as identifying unchangeable factors. Such as homosexuality. It is fixed. It's futile to try to change and unchanging quality.

 

[BadPokemon]

Reductio ad absurdum. Homosexuality is not "contagious", and the chances of 7 billion people being all homosexual at once are laughable. Homosexuals did exist since humans appeared (and many species of animals are too), and you see how we are still here.

I used an exaggeration to prove a point. We are naturally made to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.

No. That's an insane strawman. Science does not say that we came "from a rock". Please try to understand a little bit of what science says before paraphrasing it to the point of parody.

Ok, here is a little generalization: in the Big Bang theory, earth was a large rock (hardened molten something) and it rained for many years and chemicals appeared and made the basic forms of life. From there, over billions of years we came. So, essentially, we came from a rock. Let's keep on topic.

 

[Dakotah]

Well, to be fair, God creates homosexuals, heterosexuals, psychopaths, sociopaths, and the likes of people such as Hilter, Stalin, and Miley Cyrus.

Just to clarify: people are not born psychopathic or sociopathic. Both are psychological ailments not tied to a person's innate traits. So, no, God does not make them this way. Also, the cited figures can also be dismissed as an analogy, for they were not born to make the choices they did. So the argument being presented here is a false one. There is something inherently dangerous when we compare a person's sexual orientation to psychological conditions or evil or dangerous choices people make. And its these kinds of comparisons (whether in jest or genuine) that cause real harm to gays and lesbians and their families.

Ok, here is a little generalization: in the Big Bang theory, earth was a large rock (hardened molten something) and it rained for many years and chemicals appeared and made the basic forms of life. From there, over billions of years we came. So, essentially, we came from a rock. Let's keep on topic.

Your understanding of the big bang is flawed, I'm afraid.

 

[BadPokemon]

Just to clarify: people are not born psychopathic or sociopathic. Both are psychological ailments not tied to a person's innate traits. So, no, God does not make them this way. Also, the cited figures can also be dismissed as an analogy, for they were not born to make the choices they did. So the argument being presented here is a false one. There is something inherently dangerous when we compare a person's sexual orientation to psychological conditions or evil or dangerous choices people make. And its these kinds of comparisons (whether in jest or genuine) that cause real harm to gays and lesbians and their families.



Your understanding of the big bang is flawed, I'm afraid.

Lets not get off track. The thread is about marriage.

 

[Entermaid]

Just to clarify: people are not born psychopathic or sociopathic. Both are psychological ailments not tied to a person's innate traits. So, no, God does not make them this way. Also, the cited figures can also be dismissed as an analogy, for they were not born to make the choices they did. So the argument being presented here is a false one. There is something inherently dangerous when we compare a person's sexual orientation to psychological conditions or evil or dangerous choices people make. And its these kinds of comparisons (whether in jest or genuine) that cause real harm to gays and lesbians and their families.

Sexuality, murder, and rape are naturally occurring in nature and humankind since their existences. Arguing something is good or bad since it is natural is irrelevant. That doesn't mean I am saying any kind of sexuality is moral or immoral, it's just irreverent to use natural as an argument.

Further, I included heterosexuality in that list of analogy, alongside homosexuality in order to preempt any unfounded misinterpretation that I am saying anything negative against one group over the other. "The inherent danger to gays and lesbian families" is just an unfounded mud-sling, and again, is irrelevant to the issue. Race, sexuality, disease, appearance, intelligence, among other things are inherited through genetics. Though, there are environmental factors by which some of these qualities interact.

Every single licensed psychologist will agree that there are predispositions to psychopathy and sociopathy. There are more studies than I can list that provide a genetic causal link to these conditions. The strongest of which are among identical twins with different parents and upbringings. These predispositions interact with environmental factors (which are naturally occurring [could be argued a derivation of God's work]), largely out of a person's control, such as death or failed relationship. Thus, these conditions are largely due to genetic predispositions, though stressors, can also be attributed to an elevation of these conditions (again, stressors, are a product of nature, or God if you are spiritual/religious). No one has the free will to circumvent these conditions, both "good" or "bad", for lack of better terms.

Additionally, we could take anything like love, peace, death, war, and attribute it to God. It doesn't mean that these are equal items. That was the whole point of putting sexuality on the same list as less desirable characteristics in order to provide a contrast in the reasoning you are employing,

Anyway, the point being, any public policy changes to marriage, even if I agree with the same ultimate result as you (to legalize gay marriage), should employ more objective reasoning rather than depending upon a fallacy such as the naturalistic fallacy. This opens up weak arguments for the opponents to attack, and this vulnerability to weak illogical arguments, it could be argued, is more harmful to LGBT families than anything.

This is a common issue among gay rights activists and anti gay rights activists. They mud-sling and use common sayings and phrases, such as the naturalistic fallacy, in order to bolster their positions. These points are irrelevant, and should not continue to be recycled if any change in both law and attitudes is to result.

 

[Entermaid]

Lets not get off track. The thread is about marriage.

Also, I'd be interested to hear your response to my response post.

 

[Sopheria]

Imo sexuality of any kind is amoral, meaning it's neither moral or immoral. I'm not even sure how sexuality is even remotely related to morality. Imo for something to be immoral, it has to result in someone getting harmed (ie it has to have a victim, so to speak). I don't see how there's a victim involved in homosrxuality.

That said, I don't think it's even relevant to the question of the purpose of marriage, or whetheror not marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. If a couple--gay or straight--is raising a child, the only "moral" thing to do is get married. And since there's plenty of children who want parents, and plenty of gay couples who want children, I think it can be said that same sex marriage is an overall positive thing in society.

 

[BadPokemon]

Imo sexuality of any kind is amoral, meaning it's neither moral or immoral. I'm not even sure how sexuality is even remotely related to morality. Imo for something to be immoral, it has to result in someone getting harmed (ie it has to have a victim, so to speak). I don't see how there's a victim involved in homosrxuality.

That said, I don't think it's even relevant to the question of the purpose of marriage, or whetheror not marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. If a couple--gay or straight--is raising a child, the only "moral" thing to do is get married. And since there's plenty of children who want parents, and plenty of gay couples who want children, I think it can be said that same sex marriage is an overall positive thing in society.

Rape is immoral. Premarital sex is immoral. Sex with someone other than your husband/wife is immoral. People have different moral standards. I have different morals and values than other people. Morals are are more subjective. And with same sex couples have a more positive effect on society. On my point of view it isn't.

 

[Entermaid]

Rape is immoral. Premarital sex is immoral. Sex with someone other than your husband/wife is immoral. People have different moral standards. I have different morals and values than other people. Morals are are more subjective. And with same sex couples have a more positive effect on society. On my point of view it isn't.

Show your work please.

How does same sex coupling have a negative impact? Reply to some of my responses a few posts back on the other relevant issues beyond same-sex relations that are affected by same-sex marriage laws.

Right now we have, "it's immoral since it is immoral." That doesn't cut it for policy-making or being an informed citizen that votes to affect policy-making.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Ok, here is a little generalization: in the Big Bang theory, earth was a large rock (hardened molten something) and it rained for many years and chemicals appeared and made the basic forms of life. From there, over billions of years we came. So, essentially, we came from a rock. Let's keep on topic.

Oh ♥♥♥♥, not this crap again. For someone who told us to not get off topic you sure are good at getting off topic. In the meantime I have gathered resources for you to read before you spout any more nonsense about something you clearly have no understanding of.

Fenneking is right, you know, you have to have a reason to why it's immoral. Just because someone told you so isn't a good enough reason. For example, rape is immoral because it is an assault and is nonconsentual, and hurts people physically. It involves another person having their rights and body infringed upon, something that two gay guys marrying and having sexual interactions does not do to anyone else involved.

 

[Sopheria]

Rape is immoral. Premarital sex is immoral. Sex with someone other than your husband/wife is immoral. People have different moral standards. I have different morals and values than other people. Morals are are more subjective. And with same sex couples have a more positive effect on society. On my point of view it isn't.

I agree about rape, because it has a victim--the non-consenting party of the sexual intercourse. Cheatinf is immoral because it also has a victim: the person whose trust was betrayed (ie the person who was cheated on). But who is the victim in consensual sex outside of marriage?

And abour same sex marriage being good for society, think of it this way: when a child is being raised by same sex parents, don't you think it's better for the child that the parents enter a legal contract swearing to remain together, share responsibilities and property, and share the duties of raising the child?

 

[BadPokemon]

I agree about rape, because it has a victim--the non-consenting party of the sexual intercourse. Cheatinf is immoral because it also has a victim: the person whose trust was betrayed (ie the person who was cheated on). But who is the victim in consensual sex outside of marriage?

That is also cheating. The wife and husband (hopefully) reserved their sex life for each other. For someone to have sex with another person is just wrong. It is a sin.

And abour same sex marriage being good for society, think of it this way: when a child is being raised by same sex parents, don't you think it's better for the child that the parents enter a legal contract swearing to remain together, share responsibilities and property, and share the duties of raising the child?[