Homosexual Marraiges

[wesaynothin]

Clarification: If the standpoint is defended from the beliefs of an Atheist, then there should be no trouble in homosexual marriages. I personally do not believe in god- and I am indifferent to both sides, as both have failed to procure an argument suprerior to their opponent.

 

I would agree with that - I don't have a clue who or what is up there, or if anything is at all.

 

Exactly. The main argument is that it goes against God's will Vs. There is no God, so it really doesn't matter. Which, if thought about hits the 'con-party' hard with this point :

 

What if God doesn't exist? What if God does exist, but the church has it wrong, and he isn't against homosexual marriages?

______________________________________________________________

they go against nature and science and all that jazz. don't do it. don't allow it.

 

How do they go against nature or science? WhiteWolf said it, there is no proof that this is true. I can't even think of a way it might even be considered against nature.

______________________________________________________

And another thing- What makes people think they can control other peoples lives? How can some person come up to a homosexual couple and say "You aren't allowed to do that". They have no power to do that.

[cmac]

It can be weakly debated that it is "against nature" to be homosexually oriented because homosexuality is a genetic fault. It is decided, before birth, whether the person will be heterosexual or not. There is no mid-life "coming out of the closet." It is something that emerges later in life, but has always been present. I'm not saying as an insult or derogatory comment that homosecuals are bad when I say genetic fault-- it is a fact. The body has a tendency toward prefection. Progression of the body's genes through offspring is an aspect of that tendency. It goes against the perfection idea to have a homosexual relationship.

[ctogher]

:blink: Folks, this is an absolutely frivolous debate....

 

Until someone provides me with documented proof of two male lions having a wild romp in the savanah, I have little time for any further discussion on these lines.

 

Be you atheist or other, we are all animals. As children, we adopt to our parents view of the world. When you are born, despite physical inheritance, you have zero knowledge of the world around you. This is ingrained by your parents.... as a result I firmly believe that permitting a gay couple to adopt a child is exactly the sorty of behaviour that will speed the decay and extinction of humanity as a species.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I hear my mate calling....... :wacko:

[DiseasedPunk]

Really who cares what people do as long as it doesn't effect you. But thats just the thing, it is effecting us. The only problem i see is that they want more rights than even heterosexual people have, and i find that rather flawed. How fair is it that they can wear a shirt that says gay pride but if a person wears a shirt that says straight pride, its against their rights? What kind of a society is it if you say anything at all against gay people, they have the right to sue you at the drop of a hat. They're doing a lot of harm in taking away our freedom of speech, so in effect they are having a negative impact on society. I really don't care if a person is gay or not, its their thing, but the fact that they start trying to take my rights away really angers me.

[Peregrine]

I have five words for some people here:

Separation of Church and State

 

Its simple. The only argument against homosexual marriage is from religion. And religion is a distant third in importance to law and equality. So stop lecturing morals based on your "god". It is absolutely none of your business what two people do with their private lives. And who cares if their child is exposed to something you don't like, because your reasons for objecting to it are completely unreasonable. Its narrow-minded things like this that are responsible for a lot of the things wrong with our society.

 

Yes, and if they were totally seperated, marraige would not be political in any way. Remember, God first created the idea of marriage, not politicians.

Yes, but the problem is, marriage has become an undeniable legal benefit. The simple fact is, we don't have true separation of church and state. Give whatever name to it you want, but their is no nonreligious justification for giving benefits to one form of marriage and not another. If the church doesn't want to recognize it by the name "marriage", fine, but give them the same benefits in the rest of society.

 

Until someone provides me with documented proof of two male lions having a wild romp in the savanah, I have little time for any further discussion on these lines.

 

Until someone provides me with documented proof of god, that he has any authority over me or any other nonbeliever, and that he would oppose homosexual marriage, do not even bring it into the discussion. Natural or not, there is absolutely no justification for enforcing your morality on other people, especially when their actions cause no harm to anyone.

 

as a result I firmly believe that permitting a gay couple to adopt a child is exactly the sorty of behaviour that will speed the decay and extinction of humanity as a species.

 

No, intolerance and narrow-minded christian morality is the sort of behavior that will do that. Provide proof that permitting a gay couple to adopt a child is in any way harmful (and especially the end of humanity!) or concede the argument.

[ctogher]

Until someone provides me with documented proof of two male lions having a wild romp in the savanah, I have little time for any further discussion on these lines.

 

Until someone provides me with documented proof of god, that he has any authority over me or any other nonbeliever, and that he would oppose homosexual marriage, do not even bring it into the discussion. Natural or not, there is absolutely no justification for enforcing your morality on other people, especially when their actions cause no harm to anyone.

 

as a result I firmly believe that permitting a gay couple to adopt a child is exactly the sorty of behaviour that will speed the decay and extinction of humanity as a species.

 

No, intolerance and narrow-minded christian morality is the sort of behavior that will do that. Provide proof that permitting a gay couple to adopt a child is in any way harmful (and especially the end of humanity!) or concede the argument.

No disrespect intended :blush: but perhaps my complete lack of reference to a higher being or God has led you to believe that I am "enforcing", (?), my 'christian' morality on someone else.

 

1] My point is simply that mankind is the ONLY species which has adopted the practice in it's society. Be it morally acceptable or not, this simply does not occur in NATURE... ie. unnatural....

 

2] Although as stated "I firmly believe", ie. personal opinion and not definitive proof, I would argue that the sexual mores of homosexuals pose a greater risk to society than implied in any argument thus far. Being marginlised by society for their sexual preference has led to greater, and more secretive, exploits than found in hetrosexuals, rasing the level of risk and crossing international boundaries with impunity. Now, my intention is not to imply in any way that all homosexuals are disease ridden, I merely provide a counter argument for an specious retort which is in itself more knee jerk reactionary than logical debate..... :lol:

[Peregrine]

No disrespect intended  but perhaps my complete lack of reference to a higher being or God has led you to believe that I am "enforcing", (?), my 'christian' morality on someone else.

 

Those comments weren't aimed at you specifically. It's just simple fact... a large percentage of the arguments against homosexual marriage are exactly that.

 

1] My point is simply that mankind is the ONLY species which has adopted the practice in it's society. Be it morally acceptable or not, this simply does not occur in NATURE... ie. unnatural....

 

Maybe true, but I don't see how this is relevant. It's not an issue of whether it is right or wrong, but whether the government should be allowed to enforce morality decisions on someone's private life.

 

2] Although as stated "I firmly believe", ie. personal opinion and not definitive proof, I would argue that the sexual mores of homosexuals pose a greater risk to society than implied in any argument thus far. Being marginlised by society for their sexual preference has led to greater, and more secretive, exploits than found in hetrosexuals, rasing the level of risk and crossing international boundaries with impunity. Now, my intention is not to imply in any way that all homosexuals are disease ridden, I merely provide a counter argument for an specious retort which is in itself more knee jerk reactionary than logical debate.....

 

I disagree. Any flaw you can find among homosexuals can be found among any group of people, unless you consider homosexuality itself a major problem. Yes, there may be some people who are a threat to society, but you can't punish the majority who aren't because of that small minority. And in any case, the blame for this lies with society, and the way it unfairly enforces the morals of the majority. Remove the oppression and you'll find that your argument becomes completely invalid.

 

Really who cares what people do as long as it doesn't effect you. But thats just the thing, it is effecting us. The only problem i see is that they want more rights than even heterosexual people have, and i find that rather flawed. How fair is it that they can wear a shirt that says gay pride but if a person wears a shirt that says straight pride, its against their rights? What kind of a society is it if you say anything at all against gay people, they have the right to sue you at the drop of a hat. They're doing a lot of harm in taking away our freedom of speech, so in effect they are having a negative impact on society. I really don't care if a person is gay or not, its their thing, but the fact that they start trying to take my rights away really angers me.

 

I agree entirely, on both points. Who cares is exactly right, any marriage arrangement (male/female, male/male, male/10x female, whatever you can think of) should be granted the same legal and social rights as any other. Its the business of the people involved and nobody else.

 

And the "more rights than anyone else" is exactly right. That's not equality, it's simply substituting one priveledged group for another. But in our lawsuit-loving society, that's the way it's going to be. I don't belive any group, however defined, should be favored like that. But that's a bit off topic, since what we're discussing here is merely extending the same rights given to traditional marriage to cover other, equally valid, forms.

[Malchik]

There are several different topics being debated here. It is no one's right to impose their morality on another or to suggest their morality is right for those who disagree. It is a matter only of opinion and personal choice. In adopting a particular morality there are consequences that have to be considered in that it may, in some areas, conflict with what the majority of the rest of society wants. The conflict has to be recognised and dealt with in whatever way the individual wishes bearing in mind that they must accept the results of their actions within the society.

 

I cannot see where homosexual marriages breach any rules of most western societies. (Religious views are irrelevant because we do not have ecclesiastical govenments in the western hemisphere). That there are some others whose morality allows action, verbal and perhaps even physical, against such relationships is a fact tht anyone entering into a homosexual marriage will be aware. Ultimately if the couple is prepared to live with it good luck to them.

 

And BTW for whoever it was who postd the point, homosexual behaviour among animals of all kinds is well documented.

 

We should be encouraging a world of tolerance that will ultimately lead to a lowering of tension of all kinds. You may believe what you like but so may I.

 

As for the comment that children will grow up to follow their parent's beliefs. Huh - only those who are brain dead!

[wesaynothin]

Religious views are irrelevant because we do not have ecclesiastical govenments in the western hemisphere

But the problem seems to be religious groups arguing against this. If there was a true separation, it would not matter. But, like Peregine said there is no true separation from Church and State. The Church seems to have a large hunk of power in political operations. If what you said is true, than this matter would probably have been done with loong ago.

[ArtKing1239]

Folks, this is an absolutely frivolous debate....

 

Until someone provides me with documented proof of two male lions having a wild romp in the savanah, I have little time for any further discussion on these lines.

 

Be you atheist or other, we are all animals. As children, we adopt to our parents view of the world. When you are born, despite physical inheritance, you have zero knowledge of the world around you. This is ingrained by your parents.... as a result I firmly believe that permitting a gay couple to adopt a child is exactly the sorty of behaviour that will speed the decay and extinction of humanity as a species.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I hear my mate calling.......

 

Hrm. Male Giraffes and other animals have been shown to have homosexual partnerships (see: here).

 

Humans are not the same as animals. If we were, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Humans are sentient beings, conscious of their minds, some their souls, and a sense of time. Show me a single animal that believes it has a soul, or believes in a God, will you? I'm not, of course, saying this is the defining characteristic of humanity, but I am saying it is one of many. I personally don't worship a God, but as a human I have made a choice. Animals are creatures of instinct, while man is a creature of reason. Therefore, your belief that all behavior in children is ingrained by parents is simply wrong. Some is, in certain cases, of course; but the majority of human behavior is learned - where as in animals it is instinct. Therefore, humans have the choice to either lead or follow, to define themselves. I believe that is what the Christian, Islamic, and Judaic God gave us, if I'm not mistaken... Choice. In illistration of this, I personally am of an agnostic, libertarian, pro-gay rights type of mindset, while my father has a Catholic, belief in a God, a republican, anti-gay marriage mindset, and my mother shares largely the same opinions.

 

Sorry to destroy your bubble, but I must.

 

*pop*