interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
AEON said:


Well, this is actually another discussion, but I'll take the bait.

Everything we do has an effect not only on ourselves, but on others. We may not always see the connections; however, they certainly exist and almost always reveal themselves over time in some fashion or another.

The age old saying: "No Man Is an Island unto Himself" - is very true. That is why I believe that in their very essence, objective moral laws are NOT about denying pleasure, but about keeping us from hurting ourselves and each other.

There are many different things going on in bedrooms around the world. Many things that I would not do because my morals would not allow me to do them.

Are we going to create the bedroom police to make certain that moral standards are being upheld?

By denying a Gay person the ability to marry, is not going to stop them from having a homosexual relationship. Therefore, no pleasure denyed, and no morals enforced.

I know two couples who are swingers. Morally, it is not for me. Morally, I do not understand it, at all. Morally, the gay married couple with children in my church are living a much more moral life in my opinion.
 
AEON said:
Does that necessarily discredit the research that was published by the APA? Your statement is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.

Apparently, it does to you. The APA's longstanding official position is that sexual orientation is not a mental illness and is not changeable. It has been this way since the 1970s.

But then we'll look for some wacko Christian "psychiatrist" who lets his religion cloud his science. Do you honestly think that a conservative Christian psychiatrist would ever publish a study stating that being gay is, in fact, unchangeable? That, by definition, is not science. It's religion.

Melon
 
INDY500 said:
Here's the question. What is the explanation for otherwise heterosexual men and women turning to homosexuality while in prison? What is the difference between homosexual behavior and orientation in 25 words or less?

Prison sexuality is a separate psychological phenomenon, just as pedophilia is separate from heterosexuality and homosexuality. What makes it different is that, upon release from prison, prisoners will immediately revert to their natural sexual orientation. If they were gay or straight before prison, they will be gay or straight after prison.

In other words, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, ultimately.

Melon
 
Angela Harlem said:
I cannot name a single person who chose their sexuality. Do you? Honestly? Know anyone who did, I mean. It's saying to gay people that you cannot accept them as they are, that they have to change or be destined to live with a restricted lovelife. Do you really think Jesus and a fair and just God see it the same way? I cannot see it. This is logic. Surely.

The parable of the Centurion and his "Slave" in the gospels reveals interesting source text. The Gospel of Mark, I believe, wrote it first and uses a Greek word that was commonly used to refer to the Roman practice of "slave lovers." In other words, it very well could have been the parable of the Centurion and his slave lover. It's not all that illogical either, as few Romans would have cared about their slaves, unless they were in love with them. There was more than one Roman emperor who became so distraught over their dead slave lovers that they were decreed to be gods.

If that was the case, then Jesus never once judged. He commended the Centurion for his faith.

The Gospel of Luke is interesting, mainly because it takes this same story and changes the Greek word to something that is concretely about slaves, while keeping the rest of the passage intact. As such, all of this remains in the realm of theory, rather than conclusive Biblical scholarship, but logic and history still dictates how odd it would be for a Roman citizen to care about a slave he wasn't having sex with.

Melon
 
INDY500 said:


But isn't there also the sex of companionship in prison?

If two straight men fall in love in prison and stay together after release, you may have point to this otherwise ridiculous line of questioning.
 
AEON said:


But you are conceding, that at least SOME forms of homosexual behavior is a choice - correct?


No, I would say the majority is about survival. You have those that hold the power and those that may receive a shank to the side if they don't concede.

Seriously the stretches some of you are coming up with to "prove" it's choice are ridiculous.
 
Dreadsox said:
I know two couples who are swingers. Morally, it is not for me. Morally, I do not understand it, at all.
Morally, the gay married couple with children in my church are living a much more moral life in my opinion.

I agree with that. I don't know how many times we're going to discuss this topic here, certainly I'm not saying it's not worth discussing and we should discuss it many times I suppose....Anyway, in my mind a gay couple living in a loving committed monogamous relationship would always be living a more moral life than any straight couple who is betraying that commitment, as I see and define a betrayal. Obviously not everyone's moral judgment sees that and other behavior as a betrayal and immoral but mine does.

It just always makes me shake my head when heterosexuals want to avoid such comparisons and questions.
 
AtomicBono said:
Actually engaging in sexual behavior is a choice (unless you're forced, obviously). The IMPULSE is not your choice.



*perfect* distinction.

yes, i choose whether or not to make a "behavioral choice," but i do not choose the gender which makes me want to engage in said "behavior."

i wonder if heterosexuals ever see the multi-dimensional attraction they feel towards the opposite gender as a "behavioral choice"?

i can't stress this enough -- heterosexuality and homosexuality are EXACTLY the same, there's just a difference in gender attraction.
 
AEON said:
The age old saying: "No Man Is an Island unto Himself" - is very true. That is why I believe that in their very essence, objective moral laws are NOT about denying pleasure, but about keeping us from hurting ourselves and each other.



i agree, in theory, but how does being gay hurt anyone?

homophobia hurts, certainly, in fact it kills. but simply being physically and emotionally attracted to the same gender harms no one, and in fact it is only when one stays in the closet and denies his authentic self that harm is done.
 
nbcrusader said:
The genetic component is interesting, but presents a logical challenge. It would seem to be a reasonable assumption to say that those with a homosexual gene would reproduce at a lower rate than those without a homosexual gene. Just by the sheer passage of time over the generations, this factor alone should show a substantial decrease in homosexuality if it is to be based on genetic factors alone.


i think this is a misformulation -- no one argues for the presence of a single gene that determines sexual orientation. just like there is no single gene that determines one's race. sexual orientation probably arises from certain genetic potential as well as certain factors in one's environment. but the important thing, as has been repeated, is that it is 100% involuntary, there is no meaningful notion of "choice" when it comes to same gendered attraction.


[q]The areas spoken of here the least include environmental factors and behavior choice. We know there are people who identify themselves as bi-sexual. It would seem in these incidents that choice is the overriding factor. Bisexuality covers a wide range from the incidental to near exclusive same sex relations. I think we understate the broad notion of choice or our ability to control our own actions.[/q]


one can control actions, but one cannot control impulses. bisexuals do pose an interesting question, but i think you overestimate choice. do we choose who we are attracted to? who we fall in love with? who comes into our lives at any particular time?

bisexual is a complex category, it might require it's own thread.
 
melon said:


But then we'll look for some wacko Christian "psychiatrist" who lets his religion cloud his science. Do you honestly think that a conservative Christian psychiatrist would ever publish a study stating that being gay is, in fact, unchangeable?
Melon

Melon, according to this line of reasoning - we should not take anything you say regarding your interpretation of the Bible's stance on homosexuality because you are gay – and therefore you are much more likely to “read into” the Bible what isn’t really there; or that I shouldn't take Irvine seriously about gay marriage because he is gay and in love – therefore, how could he possibly be objective?

The truth is, we all carry our own baggage into our research. Hoever, even kowing that, I do not discredit anything you or Irvine says. As a matter of fact, both of you have taught me quite a bit. What is important is the research itself.

(BTW - calling ID Pseudoscience was a cute little aside :) That’s a pretty arrogant statement considering that men like Einstein supported it. But you can address this in the other thread related to this)
 
Angela Harlem said:


Glad we can resort to a rational dialogue. :) It's a funny dynamic, these debates. We have one side saying "look at what this does to an entire section of the community" and others who say "look at what you're calling me, based on my beliefs!"

Yeah, I think that if we were discussing in a pub over a beer that we would probably have an easier time of it. (unless 1 beer led to 9)

Angela Harlem said:

I dont mean to offend you, by saying Christianity is bigoted, and I'm sure there is a politer way to say "fuck that".

No offense taken. All is well :)

Angela Harlem said:

That love and acceptance has to mean for all equally? If you look at what Jesus (supposedly) lived to teach (all well and good, by the way), does that mesh with not allowing gay men and women into your church to be married before God? They're His children, too, right?

I do not think that homosexual are being treated as “unequals” because I believe the Bible does not permit them to marry, nor does it mean that they are not loved and accepted by men. If I, as a Christian, believe the Bible is the word of God (which I do), and the word of God calls homosexuality a sin (which it does according to me and ALL conservative scholarship which I generally agree with). We often do not know why something is considered sinful until later. At a basic level, it seems it is probably sinful because it logically goes against the “perfect design” for humans – that homosexuality is a result of the Fall that threw the whole created order into whack.

Nonetheless, marrying a homosexual partner is the equivalent to me going with my own opinion and not trusting God at His word – and I have learned quite some time ago that this line of thinking usually gets me into serious trouble and many people often get hurt.

There is spiritual gift called celibacy. Perhaps that one is there especially for those who do not want to seek a Christian marriage as described, in detail, in the New Testament.


Angela Harlem said:

I'm sure if there's a God, then He knows exactly what he's doing. I reckon if it were an absolute no-no, it'd be more clear than some vague mentionings of in a 2000+ year old book.

It is actually not vague at all to most Biblical scholars. Some posters here have tried to “stretch” their interpretation and the effect has been to make it “seem” unclear (which is why I started posting) – in fact, the Bible is very clear on this subject and sexual immorality as a whole.


Angela Harlem said:

The church itself is a huge institution built on a relatively small rulebook.

It is so much more than that my friend. I challenge you to pick up and read the Gospel of John tonight. I assure you that you will think differently.

Angela Harlem said:

I cannot name a single person who chose their sexuality. Do you? Honestly? Know anyone who did, I mean.

Yes, my aunt. I posted that earlier in this thread.

Angela Harlem said:

It's saying to gay people that you cannot accept them as they are, that they have to change or be destined to live with a restricted lovelife.

Jesus does accept us exactly where we are. Then the Holy Spirit enters into us and begins to mold us into the image of Christ. It is my contention that as a homosexual person, as they became more Christlike, would no longer have a homosexual orientation.
 
AEON said:
Jesus does accept us exactly where we are. Then the Holy Spirit enters into us and begins to mold us into the image of Christ. It is my contention that as a homosexual person, as they became more Christlike, would no longer have a homosexual orientation.



then why did God make me gay?

you are basically saying that homosexuality is an error, a mistake, a perversion of the "natural," and that if i were a better person, then i wouldn't have a homosexual orientation.

do you understand, firstly, how hurtful that is? that this is the basis of the self-loathing that consumes so many homosexuals that it drives them to suicide (especially when teenagers) in far greater numbers than their heteroseuxal peers? you're saying that no matter what you do, no matter how good you are, no matter how well you life your life, it really doesn't matter because you're still gay. or, worse, if you just try harder and maybe just pray harder and if you really put forth your best effort, then you wouldn't be gay.

and that's a lie. because as everyone in the "ex-gay" movement knows, and as all of the leaders of the movement who have "relapsed" or left the movement altogether and now denounce it, sexual orientation is unchangeable. we can condition ourselves into celibacy, we can condition ourselves into something akin to bisexuality, we can condition ourselves into a new cateogry of sexual orientation that they call "ex-gay," but we cannot take a gay man and make him straight no more than we can take a straight man and make him gay.
 
Irvine511 said:

then why did God make me gay?

I don’t have an answer. I believe in a fallen creation – so nothing is as should be, including me.

Irvine511 said:

you are basically saying that homosexuality is an error, a mistake, a perversion of the "natural," and that if i were a better person, then i wouldn't have a homosexual orientation. ?

Again, because of the fallen creation, the entire natural order is groaning to be redeemed – which include both you and I.


Irvine511 said:


do you understand, firstly, how hurtful that is? that this is the basis of the self-loathing that consumes so many homosexuals that it drives them to suicide (especially when teenagers) in far greater numbers than their heteroseuxal peers?

I am sorry that this is hurtful. The fact that so many kill themselves is absolutely heartbreaking and makes me very upset. I certainly think that many Christians, including myself, have a difficult time understanding what you and other homosexuals are going through. You are doing quite a bit to help me with that.

However – as a Christian, I must trust that the Lord knew what He was talking about. All I can say is that if you are a homosexual Christian, keep centering on Christ and it all will work out – in His timing. That’s the promise from Philippians 1:6.


Irvine511 said:

you're saying that no matter what you do, no matter how good you are, no matter how well you life your life, it really doesn't matter because you're still gay. or, worse, if you just try harder and maybe just pray harder and if you really put forth your best effort, then you wouldn't be gay.

I am certainly not saying this. I do not discredit your entire person because you are gay. And if you were my friend, I would not focus on this issue unless you brought it up. I believe in a God that heals every wound and makes all things perfect – including us. I trust in this hope because God has worked miracles in my own heart. I am not asking you to pray and not be gay – I am asking you to focus on Christ, the rest will take care of itself (I am not referring to being gay, I am referring to EVERYTHING)

Irvine511 said:


and that's a lie. because as everyone in the "ex-gay" movement knows, and as all of the leaders of the movement who have "relapsed" or left the movement altogether and now denounce it, sexual orientation is unchangeable. we can condition ourselves into celibacy, we can condition ourselves into something akin to bisexuality, we can condition ourselves into a new cateogry of sexual orientation that they call "ex-gay," but we cannot take a gay man and make him straight no more than we can take a straight man and make him gay.

I still don’t know enough about the science around this. My brief research seems to disagree with your statements here, but I am still willing to read the scientific arguments on both sides.

I really do not have a vested interest in either outcome. As I said before – all creation is out of whack and groaning for redemption.

Irvine, I really would like to thank you for your sincerity, honesty, and intelligence in these posts. You handle yourself well for such an emotional topic. You seem like a wonderful person and I am blessed to have had our paths cross. I am quite certain the people God has placed around you are also equally blessed.

Thank You
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Seriously the stretches some of you are coming up with to "prove" it's choice are ridiculous.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm only asking questions as I don't have a degree in Genetics, Psychology or Human Sexuality. That's what one does when one doesn't know the answer and one's in the company of those that may.
 
AEON said:

Jesus does accept us exactly where we are. Then the Holy Spirit enters into us and begins to mold us into the image of Christ. It is my contention that as a homosexual person, as they became more Christlike, would no longer have a homosexual orientation.

:barf:

If I were you, I'd ask your seminary school for your money back.
 
Irvine511 said:
and that's a lie. because as everyone in the "ex-gay" movement knows, and as all of the leaders of the movement who have "relapsed" or left the movement altogether and now denounce it, sexual orientation is unchangeable.
:up:

as soon as 1 gay person manages to change his or her sexual orientation I will do the same and become gay
just to be a rebel!

I am sure that with a couple years of training I can denie with almost a straight face that I'm attracted to women
maybe in an other decade or so I can even beat myself into denial and start proclaiming that I actually do find men attractive


then again, there really is no point for me to change my orientations
as is the case for every other human being on this planet
 
AEON said:
I am not asking you to pray and not be gay – I am asking you to focus on Christ, the rest will take care of itself (I am not referring to being gay, I am referring to EVERYTHING)



i suppose this is where we're at an impasse -- i guess i don't see being gay as any sort of fall from Grace from which i need to be redeemed, or at least no more so than your average straight person. it does seem like you're prepared to make a judgement that i cannot -- heterosexuality is always better than homosexuality.



[q]Irvine, I really would like to thank you for your sincerity, honesty, and intelligence in these posts. You handle yourself well for such an emotional topic. You seem like a wonderful person and I am blessed to have had our paths cross. I am quite certain the people God has placed around you are also equally blessed.[/q]


and thank you as well. while this is an emotional topic for me, and we do disagree, you have been 100% respectful and willing to engage in productive dialogue. and you seem like a very nice guy, too.
 
while this thread has had some interesting digressions, i'd like to pull it back to the original questions i posed in regards to the NY State ruling about gay marriage. what i am most interested in is the idea that marriage can be logically understood as a safeguard against irrepsponsible heterosexuality and the potential harm to society that straight sex can do as it often results in unwanted pregnancies. as someone under 30 who's never known a world without AIDS, i've always assumed that homosexual sex was the riskier activity and as such i take a series of precautions (above and beyond rigorous condom useage) that would probably never occur to my heterosexual friends (and which is why i'm actually not as sympathetic as i might be to the one or two unwanted pregnancies that have happened over the past year or so).

i'm also taken by the court's refusal to acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples with children.

here's a piece from The Advocate that's (obviously) very pro-gay marrirage, but also very interesting. some excerpts:



[q]Just five weeks after oral arguments in the freedom-to-marry cases brought by 44 couples and their children, the New York court of appeals (the state’s highest court) ruled, 4-2, that it is not necessarily “irrational” for the law to exclude same-sex couples and their loved ones from marriage. Applying a toothlessly minimal scrutiny to the denial of something as important as the freedom to marry, the plurality held that the limitation of marriage to different-sex couples could be arguably justified on the basis of either of two possible rationales. First, heterosexuals, who can conceive children by accident, need the stability that marriage brings (whereas gay couples, whether or not raising children, do not). Second, the denial of marriage, in the court’s words, could relate to the “intuition” that a “child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like,” even though, the judges conceded, there is no actual evidence that this is so or that children raised in other homes, including by gay parents, are at all harmed.

Put aside for the moment, as the dissent explained, that “marriage is about much more than producing children, yet same-sex couples are excluded from the entire spectrum of protections that come with civil marriage-—purportedly to encourage other people to procreate.” In fact, the plurality’s strained rationalizing of the discriminatory exclusion fails on its own terms.

New York’s ruling came just a week after the Arkansas supreme court unanimously rejected precisely the same proffered rationale; unlike the four-member majority of New York’s highest court, the judges in Arkansas (!) instead relied on the evidence provided by experts in child welfare. That evidence was, of course, available to the New York judges. Institutions such as the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychiatric Association, the Association to Benefit Children, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, among other authorities, submitted briefs to the court calling for an end to marriage discrimination in the interest of children and families.

And the very week of the New York decision, the American Academy of Pediatrics weighed in once again with an authoritative statement titled “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children” (see the academy’s full analysis on www.freedomtomarry.org). The nation’s kids’ doctors know best—and here’s what they said:

“There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”

Not only was this evidence, this kind of careful consideration of what truly helps couples and kids missing from the New York plurality opinion, so was any actual logical connection between the ends ostensibly sought (promoting stability, helping children) and the means chosen (denying that stability and help to others). As Chief Judge Judith Kaye explained in her powerful and persuasive dissent (required reading for all Americans who want to understand why our nation needs marriage equality: www.freedomtomarry.org), “it is not enough that the State have a legitimate interest in recognizing or supporting opposite-sex marriages. The relevant question here is whether there exists a rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, and, in fact, whether the State’s interests in recognizing or supporting opposite-sex marriages are rationally furthered by the exclusion.”

Under proper equal protection analysis, neither the “accidental procreation” rationale for heterosexual “stability through marriage” nor the “best interests of the children” rationale for favoring one kind of family holds up as a justification for the denial of gay people’s freedom to marry.

As the dissent pointed out, “Defendants primarily assert an interest in encouraging procreation within marriage. But while encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the State, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.… [After all,] no one rationally decides to have children because gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage.”

The plurality’s failure to even consider the lived realities of the 44 plaintiff couples, their kids, and the hundreds of thousands of gay New Yorkers and their families injured by the denial of marriage undoubtedly contributed to the retrograde and astonishing suggestion that the different-sex restriction on marriage somehow helps kids. In fact, as Judge Kaye noted, “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against.” That would be so even if the “intuition” that there is one “best kind of family” were true-—irrelevant as that is to kids who, after all, have the families they have, and don’t deserve the laws making their family’s life any harder.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=33556&page=1

[/q]



i guess i don't understand how excluding gays from marriage rights supports and affirms heterosexual marriage.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


:barf:

If I were you, I'd ask your seminary school for your money back.

Actually, the National Guard pays for it. :)

The most beautiful promise God makes us to change us into the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.

He Tore Down the Wall
It wasn't so long ago that you were mired in that old stagnant life of sin. You let the world, which doesn't know the first thing about living, tell you how to live. You filled your lungs with polluted unbelief, and then exhaled disobedience. We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat. It's a wonder God didn't lose his temper and do away with the whole lot of us. Instead, immense in mercy and with an incredible love, he embraced us. He took our sin-dead lives and made us alive in Christ. He did all this on his own, with no help from us! Then he picked us up and set us down in highest heaven in company with Jesus, our Messiah.

Now God has us where he wants us, with all the time in this world and the next to shower grace and kindness upon us in Christ Jesus. Saving is all his idea, and all his work. All we do is trust him enough to let him do it. It's God's gift from start to finish! We don't play the major role. If we did, we'd probably go around bragging that we'd done the whole thing! No, we neither make nor save ourselves. God does both the making and saving. He creates each of us by Christ Jesus to join him in the work he does, the good work he has gotten ready for us to do, work we had better be doing.

But don't take any of this for granted. It was only yesterday that you outsiders to God's ways had no idea of any of this, didn't know the first thing about the way God works, hadn't the faintest idea of Christ. You knew nothing of that rich history of God's covenants and promises in Israel, hadn't a clue about what God was doing in the world at large. Now because of Christ—dying that death, shedding that blood—you who were once out of it altogether are in on everything.

The Messiah has made things up between us so that we're now together on this, both non-Jewish outsiders and Jewish insiders. He tore down the wall we used to keep each other at a distance. He repealed the law code that had become so clogged with fine print and footnotes that it hindered more than it helped. Then he started over. Instead of continuing with two groups of people separated by centuries of animosity and suspicion, he created a new kind of human being, a fresh start for everybody.

Christ brought us together through his death on the cross. The Cross got us to embrace, and that was the end of the hostility. Christ came and preached peace to you outsiders and peace to us insiders. He treated us as equals, and so made us equals. Through him we both share the same Spirit and have equal access to the Father.

That's plain enough, isn't it? You're no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You're no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He's using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he's using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home. (Ephesians 2 – the Message)
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:


i guess i don't understand how excluding gays from marriage rights supports and affirms heterosexual marriage.

I seriously do not think that the lawgivers and lawmakers throughout the centuries even considered that marriage would be anything other than between a man and a woman.

At its pure logical level - healthy heterosexual marriage is the best chance to ensure a stable, lasting society. They are the relationships that have the best chance of producing a future (i.e. kids).

The breakdown of the family has had horrible consequences in Western Civilization. Even my liberal friends agree with that.

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.
 
Well my heterosexual parents have/had a very unhealthy relationship which in turn has resulted in many problems for me-but I humbly say it has also made me a better person in many ways because of my struggle in dealing with that fact. Still I would have preferred to have gay parents who had a healthy relationship.

Gay parents and gay relationships doesn't equal the breakdown of the family-even straight people in healthy relationships are doing a fine job on their own of breaking down the family and western civilization. And of making it very unstable.

Who defines that the future = kids? People without kids have wonderful relationships and contribute so much to this world. I think the future that holds the most promise ever possible is one in which people are free to be who they are and are healthy themselves mentally and emotionally as a result, and engage in healthy relationships because of that freedom and health.
 
AEON said:


At its pure logical level - healthy heterosexual marriage is the best chance to ensure a stable, lasting society. They are the relationships that have the best chance of producing a future (i.e. kids).

Reproduction doesn't = stable.
AEON said:

The breakdown of the family has had horrible consequences in Western Civilization. Even my liberal friends agree with that.

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.

Do you honestly think supporting homosexual marriage will decrease reproduction? This makes no sense.
 
AEON said:

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.

So, can't enlightened societies support healthy heterosexual marriages AND healthy homosexual marriages? Or is your point that only the one kind of marriage keeps a strong foundation? Is your point that homosexual marriage will weaken this foundation? If so, what evidence do you base this on?

[I just have to restate again how logically weak and waffling this court decision is...even to a lay person with an average IQ as me.]
 
Last edited:
You have a gay aunt...

I have a gay aunt....

My Aunt is married with the same partner for about 30 years now.
They raised a child together. He turned out all right. He has a wonderful wife. They are expecting a child.

-------------------------

My parents have a total of 10 marriages between them.

My Aunts are my role models for relationships. Period. My wife and I now have been married longer than 9 of my parents marriages.

---------------------------

Explain to me how stopping homosexual marriage will help the future? Will suddenly you or I and other straight people wake up and say...gee I think I want to marry him? The percentage of people who are homosexual will not change....By denying them marriage licenses....you are preventing what from happening?
--------------------------------

My grandparents have been married for 68 years. They have not had a kid in their house for many many moons. Marriage is more than the ability to produce a stable society (ie Kids).
 
Jesus-30 year old, lives with mother, hangs around with 12 boys....

hmmm.....
 
Judah said:


So, can't enlightened societies support healthy heterosexual marriages AND healthy homosexual marriages? Or is your point that only the one kind of marriage keeps a strong foundation? Is your point that homosexual marriage will weaken this foundation?


The key word would be 'enlightened'. The majority isn't there yet. And why?

Judah said:

If so, what evidence do you base this on?

Because of this...the majority doesn't need evidence to feed their bigotry.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Reproduction doesn't = stable.

non-reproduction = extinction

BonoVoxSupastar said:


Do you honestly think supporting homosexual marriage will decrease reproduction? This makes no sense.

No human society, not a single one, has ever declared “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. It was not until very recently have we believed that we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and nature—and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes stability by insuring that every child has a mother and father.

The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit—the presence of a father and a mother— on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.

Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.

Denying gay marriage only seems cruel because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. The cruelty is in intentionally denying them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal. (mostly cut and pasted from an argument made by Glenn T. Stanton)
 
Last edited:
AEON said:


I seriously do not think that the lawgivers and lawmakers throughout the centuries even considered that marriage would be anything other than between a man and a woman.

At its pure logical level - healthy heterosexual marriage is the best chance to ensure a stable, lasting society. They are the relationships that have the best chance of producing a future (i.e. kids).

The breakdown of the family has had horrible consequences in Western Civilization. Even my liberal friends agree with that.

Supporting healthy heterosexual marriage seems the best way to build a foundation upon which to build a lasting society.


as the product of a healthy heterosexual marriage, i think heterosexual marriage is a great thing, but i don't see how the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

tell me, exactly, how it does that.

are we not a part of the family tradition? are we not allowed to start families of our own? why would you deny us the tools to participate?
 
Back
Top Bottom