biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[serpentdove]

As much as you might hate to admit it, you and I are on the same side of this issue. If you're looking for an argument, you've come to the wrong person.

What's to argue about? :idunno: Marriage is instituted by God (Gen. 2:18–24). Society will honor God (Heb. 13:4) or they won't (Jer. 16:2).

 

[quip]

The state, as in the government. Why should marriage be governed?

I think we risk losing all meaning of marriage if it's applicable to any people who "love" each other.

I understand your defense of traditional marriage.
I furthermore understand that within a free country where "all men are created equal" and barring any practical concerns ....I see zero justification for not amending this tradition.

 

[glassjester]

I understand your defense of traditional marriage.
I furthermore understand that within a free country where "all men are created equal" and barring any practical concerns ....I see zero justification for not amending this tradition.

You'd first have to understand what marriage is, and its purpose, before seeking to change it.

What is marriage? And what is the state's interest in encouraging it and governing it?

 

[quip]

You'd first have to understand what marriage is, and its purpose, before seeking to change it.

Its goals have changed over the years.

Throughout history marriage has been employed as business contracts, to form alliances and mere convenience...to name a few.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html

 

[Stripe]

If you want to argue that homosexuality is damaging, then you have to be able to demonstrate that homosexuality qua homosexuality is damaging.

Easy.

Homos get AIDS and die in vastly greater numbers than normal people.

 

[Crucible]

About half of all gay couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with full knowledge of the other partner who does the same. The gay contract of marriage is not the same as the heterosexual bond- they are in it for the civil ordinance i.e. sharing the same house, making mutual decisions.

It is most typically not the love story liberals want to think of it as, with their consistent slants like conservatives 'make America hate' and so on. Homosexual culture is what it is whether you institute marriage into it or not- it's also one of the liberal's intellectual sins because they try to say conservatives are wrong about them but then they themselves cravenly hand them anything they think will enrich the gay condition.

And it just gets thrown into the burn pile the same as anything else :chuckle:

Yeah, you got your gay marriage- now stop pretending it was for any other purpose than to simply be adversarial to Christians :wave2:

 

[quip]

About half of all gay couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with full knowledge of the other partner who does the same. The gay contract of marriage is not the same as the heterosexual bond- they are in it for the civil ordinance i.e. sharing the same house, making mutual decisions.

It is most typically not the love story liberals want to think of it as, with their consistent slants like conservatives 'make America hate' and so on. Homosexual culture is what it is whether you institute marriage into it or not- it's also one of the liberal's intellectual sins because they try to say conservatives are wrong about them but then they themselves cravenly hand them anything they think will enrich the gay condition.

Mayhap a social consequence of being historically forced underground; of any public display of homosexuality bringing about violence and/or incarceration; of a lifestyle forced to clandestine assemblage. :idunno:

...but you could care less about that, frankly you enjoy the hate and denigration. Correct?

Yeah, you got your gay marriage- now stop pretending it was for any other purpose than to simply be adversarial to Christians :wave2:

Yes, it's once again ALL about you humble christians. lain:

 

[ok doser]

The difference is that we know that smoking causes damage to the body, qua smoking. We know why it is causing it as well. The correlation would not be enough, since it could be other factors contributing heavily to that correlation. See the "not shaving and coronary disease" example. I've offered such other explanations for high HIV/AIDS rates in homosexual men, and those factors are not an inherent part of homosexuality. So if the disease rates are the concern, I should be advocating for promiscuity and usage of condoms for homosexuals, not advocate against homosexuality as such.

i presume you mean against promiscuity


why not advocate for abstinence?

 

[Crucible]

Mayhap a social consequence of being historically forced underground; of any public display of homosexuality bringing about violence and/or incarceration; of a lifestyle forced to clandestine assemblage. :idunno:

They were never historically prominent enough, except perhaps ancient Greece, to suffer any sort of systematic oppression. Sodomy laws collected dust, hombre, how many of them were ever actually in prison or castrated for it?

The fact is that what you call oppressed in modern history are gay men meeting in parks to perform very prostitution-like actions. The bright colors the more flamboyant ones wear was never a fashion statement, it was to identify each other for sodomy.

...but you could care less about that, frankly you enjoy the hate and condemnation. correct?

I care about the fact that it's all nothing more than a big, giant lie you liberals made because you find such a thing more acceptable than being a white Christian; it ever only was to bash Christians with :AMR:

Yes, it's once again ALL about you humble christians. lain:

Apparently, it is not. It's not about us at all, it's about your gays and your feminists, your black people and your atheists. Not us- we've been sued and harassed by them for years. The Democrats have called half the country- all the Christians in rural America- every name in the book, and were preparing to flat out make them irrelevant and throw them under the bus for their agendas.

Sorry, but your repeated buzz statements are now just straight up bullcrap- dead platitudes to justify dissent from the common interests of American citizens :wave2:

 

[quip]

They were never historically prominent enough, except perhaps ancient Greece, to suffer any sort of systematic oppression. Sodomy laws collected dust, hombre, how many of them were ever actually in prison or castrated for it?

The fact is that what you call oppressed in modern history are gay men meeting in parks to perform very prostitution-like actions. The bright colors the more flamboyant ones wear was never a fashion statement, it was to identify each other for sodomy.



I care about the fact that it's all nothing more than a big, giant lie you liberals made because you find such a thing more acceptable than being a white Christian; it ever only was to bash Christians with :AMR:



Apparently, it is not. It's not about us at all, it's about your gays and your feminists, your black people and your atheists. Not us- we've been sued and harassed by them for years. The Democrats have called half the country- all the Christians in rural America- every name in the book, and were preparing to flat out make them irrelevant and throw them under the bus for their agendas.

Sorry, but your repeated buzz statements are now just straight up bullcrap- dead platitudes to justify dissent from the common interests of American citizens :wave2:

You not only enjoy the hate...you've a profound passion for it.

It must be very sad and tiring to be you. What's your history, why all this animosity?

 

[Selaphiel]

i presume you mean against promiscuity

Yeah, should say against.

why not advocate for abstinence?

Because there is no reason to. You may oppose it or dislike it for religious reasons. But unless you can translate that into a more general argument that doesn't rely on religious authority, then it is not a valid reason for anyone not adhering to your specific interpretation of a specific religious creed.

 

[ok doser]

Because there is no reason to.

sure there is

by any measure, it is a perversion of normal sexuality, and is inherently incapable of achieving the purpose of normal sexuality

 

[Selaphiel]

sure there is

by any measure, it is a perversion of normal sexuality, and is inherently incapable of achieving the purpose of normal sexuality

Then you need to construct a general argument for what constitutes 'normal sexuality'. How do you determine what is 'normal sexuality' and the 'purpose of normal sexuality'? That would be some sort of argument from nature. Problem is, nature displays a variety of sexual variety. It displays masturbation and other sexual games involving one or more individual, and it displays homosexual behavior in a wide variety of species. If you then claim that those animals are perverse as well, then I wonder what your basis for claiming that without appealing to a specific interpretation of a specific religious creed? And if you say that animals aren't moral role models, then I would agree with you, but then you also undermine your own argument about what is normal based on nature.

 

[ok doser]

Then you need to ...

no, sela, i don't

you stated there is no reason


i gave you a reason


now it's your turn to argue why abstinence wouldn't be the best option for those inclined to indulge in perversion

 

[quip]

Then you need to construct a general argument for what constitutes 'normal sexuality'.

We've been there...he can't.

He instead hides behind abstract pretense.

 

[Arthur Brain]

no, sela, I can't

That would have been a more honest response.

 

[Selaphiel]

no, sela, i don't

you stated there is no reason


i gave you a reason

No, you didn't. Saying it is wrong because it is perversion is a circular argument. It is tantamount to saying 'It is wrong because it is wrong', or saying 'It is wrong because it is perverse', but you haven't established that it is perverse.

 

[ok doser]

No, you didn't. Saying it is wrong because it is perversion is a circular argument. It is tantamount to saying 'It is wrong because it is wrong', or saying 'It is wrong because it is perverse', but you haven't established that it is perverse.

i said more than that sela - i gave you a clear reason why it was a perversion

 

[Selaphiel]

i said more than that sela - i gave you a clear reason why it was a perversion

Refering to the natural purpose of sexual activity is not any better argument unless you are capable to demonstrating this 'natural purpose of sexual activity'. Read my response again, already adressed it:

How do you determine what is 'normal sexuality' and the 'purpose of normal sexuality'? That would be some sort of argument from nature. Problem is, nature displays a variety of sexual variety. It displays masturbation and other sexual games involving one or more individual, and it displays homosexual behavior in a wide variety of species. If you then claim that those animals are perverse as well, then I wonder what your basis for claiming that without appealing to a specific interpretation of a specific religious creed? And if you say that animals aren't moral role models, then I would agree with you, but then you also undermine your own argument about what is normal based on nature.

You are superimposing a normative judgment of normal sexuality on nature based on your specific interpretation of a specific religious creed. Not all sexual activity in nature serves the purpose of reproduction. Sexual activity that is not reproductive may very well serve other social functions in social animals.

 

[ok doser]

Refering to the natural purpose of sexual activity....

sorry, sela, if you're too dense to understand what the natural purpose of sexual activity is, there's no point in continuing with this


do us all a favor and take some bio courses


or maybe we can all wait until you've taken ninth grade health class