Marriage.

[Sopheria]

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.

I think you misunderstood. I was agreeing that adultery is immoral. What I was disagreeing with is that sex before marriage is immoral. If neither party involved in the act is married, who's the victim? Who's being cheated on? Again, something immoral has to have a victim.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

How is having sex with someone when you're not married cheating? You don't have anyone to cheat against lol

 

[BadPokemon]

How is having sex with someone when you're not married cheating? You don't have anyone to cheat against lol

I misread the question. What I was trying to get to was sexual immorality is a sin.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I misread the question. What I was trying to get to was sexual immorality is a sin.

What defines immorality, then? Immorality varies from culture to culture. The etoro for example are known for their, uh, very different morality regarding sexual practices than western society is.

 

[BadPokemon]

A liberalist defines immoral differently than I would. I find homosexuality a sin, they may not.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

A liberalist defines immoral differently than I would. I find homosexuality a sin, they may not.

Well, that's fine, although most people on this forum would agree that your opinions on homosexuality are immoral themselves. Immorality is completely induced by one's perspective and prejudices which makes it lacking in terms of imposing law on many, unless that moral is agreed upon by a lot of people.

 

[Entermaid]

A liberalist defines immoral differently than I would. I find homosexuality a sin, they may not.

But again, homosexuality being moral or immoral is not the focal issue regarding same-sex marriage. Regardless of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, I tend to agree with zomgitscathy that all sexuality is amoral, same sex marriage affects political and social substructures in the United States. Further, this policy doesn't affect the number of homosexuals having relations, rather it affects the nature of homosexual relations, again, this shift would be considered by social convention and biblical doctrine to be more moralistic.

This tangent about morality is irrelevant to policy making, it offers no substantive reasoning as to issues of polarity, social cohesion (of conventions, life expectations/goals, and mores), physical social segregation (gay sanctioned areas), adoption vs. foster care, among other issues. All issues which present "moral" or social dilemmas. Anything to add on these issues?

Again, feel free to respond to my post a few posts back in which I explain each of these in more depth. Please refrain from, "I believe because I believe" statements, as it ignores the impact these policies or lack of policies have on both homosexual and heterosexual individuals. If laws were made ignoring the indirect impacts on lives of millions, it would certainly be suspect to "moralistic" or ethical investigation.

Thanks. Look forward to your response.

(Oh I'd also add that I am more of a classical conservative in the Burkean sense [if I were forced to choose a political ideology], though I am always evolving my stances and open to new information and reasoning. So you are getting more than just liberal perspectives in approbation of same-sex marriage policies.)

 

[BadPokemon]

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.

Would you be referring to this?

 

[Entermaid]

Would you be referring to this?

Yes. I'd be interested for you to assess carefully each point.

 

[Raine]

Just going to interject slightly with an irrelevant and slightly off-topic thought here, but how the hell did a thread discussing marriage change into one that focuses on homosexuality, morals, values, etc.? @.@

Regardless of the nature of the relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, marriage to people are important whether others believe so or not; to each their own in this case, and thus the reason for this discussion thread. From my perspective, marriage seems like a tangible thing that connects two individuals together besides their feelings and commitment to each other. That tangible object, which would be the marriage certificate, documents and signifies their devotion to each other meanwhile symbolizing the connection they share. Though I wouldn't feel it's absolutely necessary for everyone to get married. Like I've started before, and reiterating my point, marriage is not for everyone and there are couples who believe they are better off not getting married merely for the label.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Just going to interject slightly with an irrelevant and slightly off-topic thought here, but how the hell did a thread discussing marriage change into one that focuses on homosexuality, morals, values, etc.? @.@

One answer: because BadPokemon joined it. >.>

I agree though, I tried to keep it a little on topic but the moment he started throwing around his "I don't like gay marriage because of the Bible" stuff it was already too late. It's interesting that he never actually presented his opinion on the idea of marriage because this topic has nothing to do with the right of homosexuality and all that.

Nonetheless, the conversation has shifted but it's still interesting and actually kind of thought provoking.

 

[Sir Codin]

I really do not care if this offends someone, I really don't:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/biblequotes.htm

After reading a few of these, I can whoeheartedly say that the bible is a terrible source for learning morals.

 

[BadPokemon]

I am going to skip over most of this thread. Ephesians 5:22-33 states the man and women's job in marriage. Marriage is very important because it is a gift from God and it allows the husband and wife to support each other and raise kids. Divorce is a sin unless one has had sex with someone other than who they married to and they divorce. I mean no offense to homosexuals, but being gay is a sin. I don't hate gay people or anything, so don't get me wrong. If I did hate them and shun them, I would be an ignorant hypocrite because I also sin. A lot. But, in different ways. For those who don't appreciate my Christian point of view, here is a slightly more secular argument. A man and women's body parts match up. A guys and a guys don't and a women's and a women's don't. (I think it is for a reason). So no, I think gay marriage is wrong and not as important. Marriage is meant for a man and a women who love each other to become, in a sense, one flesh. Marriage is clearly important from a Christian point of view.

Here is my first post. It was on topic.

One answer: because BadPokemon joined it. >.>

Always seems to be the answer.

I agree though, I tried to keep it a little on topic but the moment he started throwing around his "I don't like gay marriage because of the Bible" stuff it was already too late. It's interesting that he never actually presented his opinion on the idea of marriage because this topic has nothing to do with the right of homosexuality and all that.

I did in my first post. I think the post is right above this.

Nonetheless, the conversation has shifted but it's still interesting and actually kind of thought provoking.

I really do not care if this offends someone, I really don't:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/biblequotes.htm

After reading a few of these, I can whoeheartedly say that the bible is a terrible source for learning morals.



Those are out of context. The Bible sets great moral standards. Many of these deaths are because of severe disobedience to God despite having many chances. (Sodom and Gemora in Genesis)

 

[Dakotah]

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

Yes it is. And I for one start rolling my eyes at anyone who thinks other people's lives should be dictated by another person's religious beliefs, especially when it comes to marriage. It's one thing to hold a belief, which is fine, but another entirely when people take that belief and seek to impose it on others through legislation. I'm not saying this is what you are doing (or have done), but I am pointing out the fact that there are some people with strong religious convictions who HAVE (and still continue to) attempt to influence the laws to make others conform to their religious beliefs (ie. prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married because they view it as being immoral).

I keep being reminded of a lesson my father drilled into me when I was growing up: keep your nose out of other people's business. Essentially, if they're not harming anyone else or committing a criminal act, leave 'em be. What they do in their personal lives does not affect you... unless you choose to interfere.

And I say anyone who even thinks that two people who love each other regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnic background, or other recognized trait, shouldn't get married would be wise to heed that lesson as well.

Marriage is a very personal thing, and anyone interested in becoming a part of the institution should be congratulated and their marriage celebrated. Like I said, the only people it should be up to whether or not they get married is the couple themselves.

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.

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist so I cannot answer any of your points (in your extremely long post -- ever thought of writing a book? :) ) since I haven't invested any time looking into that that particular subject. I do, however, know this: no one is born a murderer and no one is born a rapist. Something that occurs naturally does not necessarily mean it is the result of an innate trait like a person's sex, sexual orientation, the colour of their skin, the colour of their eyes, the colour of their hair, or whether they are left handed or right handed. To murder someone is to make a choice. To rape someone is to make a choice. To be gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender is not. That is why making such comparisons is so insulting and demeaning. You call it mud-slinging. I call it standing up for myself.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Marriage is a very personal thing, and anyone interested in becoming a part of the institution should be congratulated and their marriage celebrated. Like I said, the only people it should be up to whether or not they get married is the couple themselves.

This is the most true thing that has been written in the subject and I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Dakotah]

It's funny. In a way, I'm already married without even having a ceremony or signing a piece of paper. You see, in the province where I live, a couple who has been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months is considered to be in a common-law marriage. Well, my boyfriend and I have been in a relationship and living together now for over 4 years. We don't consider ourselves married, but the province does.

 

[Entermaid]

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist so I cannot answer any of your points (in your extremely long post -- ever thought of writing a book? :) ) since I haven't invested any time looking into that that particular subject. I do, however, know this: no one is born a murderer and no one is born a rapist. Something that occurs naturally does not necessarily mean it is the result of an innate trait like a person's sex, sexual orientation, the colour of their skin, the colour of their eyes, the colour of their hair, or whether they are left handed or right handed. To murder someone is to make a choice. To rape someone is to make a choice. To be gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender is not. That is why making such comparisons is so insulting and demeaning. You call it mud-slinging. I call it standing up for myself.

Again, strawman, I never said anyone was born specifically to be a rapist or murderer, I simply stated that those occur throughout nature ubiquitously. Similarly, sexuality, of all kinds, again, I included both homosexuality and heterosexuality and you continue to state I am only referring to homosexuality (thus the mudsling, understand). Again, it doesn't make sense to stand up for yourself, when this applies to all people that have sexual inclinations.

All sexualities, murder, rape, parenting, many psychological/behavior deficiencies, warfare, alliances, among other things are all naturally occurring. Thus, there must be some innate qualities by which animals are instructed through genetics to kill. Humans kills plants and animals everyday, all of us do vicariously through our diets. We are born killers, it's the only way really to survive. Murder is completely natural, and ever species displays murder among their own species persistently. Natural means nothing. Since, in nature, animals also protect their young, have children, teach children, and bond with others of their species.

And sociopaths/psychopaths are born with those predispositions; they don't choose these predispositions, so please add that to your list of natural attributes among humans. We don't simply state then that being natural is therefore sufficient support to changing policy, since natural things vary significantly in their value in assuring a stable society.

Back on topic:
The point being, again, when gay marriage proponents and anti gay marriage proponents argue whether something being natural is important, it's the naturalistic fallacy. Since both groups, alike condemn and condone natural things. A quality being natural, is irrelevant, and your point that homosexuality is natural is irrelevant on its own standing to implementing the policy. However, there are plenty of other reasons to support the change in marriage policy, as I have stated several times.


"Marriage is a very personal thing, and anyone interested in becoming a part of the institution should be congratulated and their marriage celebrated. Like I said, the only people it should be up to whether or not they get married is the couple themselves."

Yes. Marriage is a personal institution, but it is also societal, and helps stabilized societal institutions.

That being said, some rules must be instated regarding eligibility of marriage. We can't rely on EVERY two people that want to be married, to decide that. For instance, in the case of incest, underage-underage, underage-of age, immigrants, prisoners, ect, different laws should apply whether to completely ban or set certain conditions to marriages formed by two persons. That is why legal codes, societal mandates, are placed on marriage. Though, I agree with the point that homosexual marriages would NOT be included in this list, and should operate under the same/simlar laws that heterosexual couples. Again, absolutes, don't work well since there are a variety of cases and conditions, in any policy area that need to be considered.

 

[Sopheria]

It's funny. In a way, I'm already married without even having a ceremony or signing a piece of paper. You see, in the province where I live, a couple who has been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months is considered to be in a common-law marriage. Well, my boyfriend and I have been in a relationship and living together now for over 4 years. We don't consider ourselves married, but the province does.

Oh wow, just 12 months? So like, if you ever want to separate do you have to go through divorce procedures?

 

[Dakotah]

Again, strawman, I never said anyone was born specifically to be a rapist or murderer, I simply stated that those occur throughout nature ubiquitously. Similarly, sexuality, of all kinds, again, I included both homosexuality and heterosexuality and you continue to state I am only referring to homosexuality (thus the mudsling, understand). Again, it doesn't make sense to stand up for yourself, when this applies to all people that have sexual inclinations.

It is clear to me that we could go on and on in circles on this, but what it really boils down to is that you are using a different meaning of the word "natural" than I am. I am not using the word in the sense you are which is why you are unable to comprehend what I'm saying.

The term as I am using it: 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

The term as you are using it (as I see it): 2.of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

Or maybe its just me, a guy with only a high school education who cannot comprehend the fancy words you use.

I'm getting too old for this.

Oh wow, just 12 months? So like, if you ever want to separate do you have to go through divorce procedures?

Nah, just move out and change your address. Unlike with a formal marriage, what's yours is yours and you take it with you.

 

[BadPokemon]

Again, strawman, I never said anyone was born specifically to be a rapist or murderer, I simply stated that those occur throughout nature ubiquitously. Similarly, sexuality, of all kinds, again, I included both homosexuality and heterosexuality and you continue to state I am only referring to homosexuality (thus the mudsling, understand). Again, it doesn't make sense to stand up for yourself, when this applies to all people that have sexual inclinations.

All sexualities, murder, rape, parenting, many psychological/behavior deficiencies, warfare, alliances, among other things are all naturally occurring. Thus, there must be some innate qualities by which animals are instructed through genetics to kill. Humans kills plants and animals everyday, all of us do vicariously through our diets. We are born killers, it's the only way really to survive. Murder is completely natural, and ever species displays murder among their own species persistently. Natural means nothing. Since, in nature, animals also protect their young, have children, teach children, and bond with others of their species.

And sociopaths/psychopaths are born with those predispositions; they don't choose these predispositions, so please add that to your list of natural attributes among humans. We don't simply state then that being natural is therefore sufficient support to changing policy, since natural things vary significantly in their value in assuring a stable society.

Back on topic:
The point being, again, when gay marriage proponents and anti gay marriage proponents argue whether something being natural is important, it's the naturalistic fallacy. Since both groups, alike condemn and condone natural things. A quality being natural, is irrelevant, and your point that homosexuality is natural is irrelevant on its own standing to implementing the policy. However, there are plenty of other reasons to support the change in marriage policy, as I have stated several times.


"Marriage is a very personal thing, and anyone interested in becoming a part of the institution should be congratulated and their marriage celebrated. Like I said, the only people it should be up to whether or not they get married is the couple themselves."

Yes. Marriage is a personal institution, but it is also societal, and helps stabilized societal institutions.

That being said, some rules must be instated regarding eligibility of marriage. We can't rely on EVERY two people that want to be married, to decide that. For instance, in the case of incest, underage-underage, underage-of age, immigrants, prisoners, ect, different laws should apply whether to completely ban or set certain conditions to marriages formed by two persons. That is why legal codes, societal mandates, are placed on marriage. Though, I agree with the point that homosexual marriages would NOT be included in this list, and should operate under the same/simlar laws that heterosexual couples. Again, absolutes, don't work well since there are a variety of cases and conditions, in any policy area that need to be considered.

Murder, psychopath, sociopath is a choice. I choose to kill someone. If it was not their fault, why are these people on death row and not at a mental institution under close watch? It is a choice.