nogods4me

Well to extend the arguement against gay unions to it's obnoxious and absurd conclusion.

If the state opposes gay marriage , but supports straight marriages, because the traditional family is the cornerstone of western society (*cough*cough*bullsh!t*cough), then perhaps they should ban marriages when one or the other of the couple is infertile, or when they do not wish to have children. perhaps there ought to be a time limit on marriage licenses. Get married, and you must beget offspring within 2 years or the marriage is annulled. Maybe a DNA test before issuing a license, and refusal to issue them to folks with certain genetic markers or conditions. No licenses to women who have passed menopause, or for men with low sperm counts.
Oh, and by the way, when your children have grown and left home, we'll annul you marriage.

abe smith

Nearly two weeks ago I emailed Senator Frist. MD & surgeon, and evidently a believing & practising Catholic; I asked him to provide legal and biologically-valid -under-all-circumstances definitions for *his* two terms, ) what he wants a Constitutional Amendment to say) = "a man" and "a woman". If you think that's EASY, you haven't tried to do it.
So far I haven't heard an answer from Senator Frist; and I haven't seen any public definitions nor discussion about this.
I'd like to suggest that members here at EyeEye write to Senator Bill Frist (either snail or email) at the Senate office Building, DC 20510 and ask him the same question. If Frist and other true believers want to make laws to run everybody else, they'd better know what they're talking about!
So far as I've been able to determine there's never BEEN any legal definition of those two terms; and if the lawmakers plan to try to do that, they'd BETTER WATCH OUT!
Note that Senator Frist wants to impose the RomanCatholic religious-dogmatic definition of "marriage is a sacrament" into our Federal SECULAR Constitution. Abe

dave82

I'm twenty years old and I'm gay.

I have some questions for those who share the same sentiments as the person who said the following.

"I think that marriage between a man and a woman are the cornerstone of civilized society, or at least civilized society in the West. I believe homosexuality to be vile both naturally and morally and that extending any benefit of such a vital institution is not just to crumble at its foundations but to bring it down."

1. Why do you believe homosexuality to be vile naturally?

Do you believe it is unnatural because you believe sex is only meant for reproduction? If not, do you believe human beings experience love? If so, when you feel love (when you love, when you care deeply) for someone, do you believe it is unnatural to feel the desire to be affectionate to that someone? If you do feel the desire to be affectionate to that someone, then wouldn't you believe that it be unnatural to hold back your desires?

I believe you abuse the word natural. Love for another leads to ultimately showing love to that person. Not giving into your desires is what's unnatural. I believe the emotions of love are in just about every human being on earth. I believe it has been proven that a significant portion of the human population tend to have special feelings toward people of their own sex, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Sex is not only meant for reproduction. Sex is an act of mutual deep affection that people share between each other. If you loved someone so much and you felt like that person was everything in your life, wouldn't you want to devour that person, take them into your arms and show them how much you love them?

So explain to me how love is unnatural between homosexuals. Explain to me how it is unnatural for two gay people who have the same tingly sensational feelings toward one another, that two straight people have when they're in love. If the feelings are there then isn't it natural? What I think you mean when you say homosexuality is unnatural, you mean homosexuality is unnatural to you, and you use that as your reasoning for stating it is unnaturally vile for any human being. You judge what you do not understand. Just because you don't have feelings for other people of your own sex does not mean others cannot.

2. Why do you believe homosexuality to be vile morally?

We live in a country where ethics and morals are standardized democratically. Just because you believe it is immoral does not mean it is. And if you're going to state something is immoral, justify your reasoning, and if you can't then you probably ought to rethink things out. If your justification is based from your religion, that shouldn't be good enough for you. Think for yourself, and try considering other interpretations. Recognize the logical fallacies and contradictions of a religious text which preaches to love yet also preaches not to love.

How has a gay person done anything to hurt you? We're talking about love here. How has loving someone ever hurt anyone?
Don't your morals tell you to be loving? How are you being loving when you judge other people?

3. Why do you think that marriage between a man and a woman are the cornerstone of civilized society?

I take it you mean family? You are generalizing. Not all men are masculine, and not all women are feminine. And there are many gay men who are masculine, and there are many lesbians who are feminine. Mannerisms have nothing to do with sexual orientation. So tell me what qualities are there that a woman can't bring a child that a man can, and then vice versa? I have seen plenty of men who have a loving, nurturing quality just as I have seen plenty of women who have a self-confident, assertive quality. Children with homosexual parents grow up just as healthy as children with heterosexual parents.

4. Why do you say extending the benefits of marriage to homosexuals will cause (society?) and/or (the meaning of marriage?) not just to crumble at its foundations but to bring it down?

What is your evidence that society will crumble? It's two people sharing their lives together. In what way does that affect society? Don't have beliefs unless you can back them up.

It is wrong for society to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. If the state only allows women and men to marry, then the state bases its definition of marriage from the bible, which would be a violation of "separation of church and state".

I am a human being. I deserve the right to marry who I choose and to enjoy the same privileges and conveniences as opposite-sex married couples enjoy.

This is America. Freedom is what we're supposed to be all about.

fromtheright

dave82,

Why do you believe homosexuality to be vile naturally?

It is opposed to the natural order of male and female being attracted to each other. Yeah, yeah, I've heard the "I was born this way argument." Accepting that for argument's sake, so are various animals with birth defects. Someone who is a pedophile and argues he was born that way is equally defective, again, assuming there is any fact in that.


Do you believe it is unnatural because you believe sex is only meant for reproduction? If not, do you believe human beings experience love?

My argument above had nothing to do with reproduction, though I do believe that is an additional supporting argument. Your question is a false alternative.

But, yes, I believe human beings experience love, but erotic love between two individuals of the same sex is perverted.


If so, when you feel love (when you love, when you care deeply) for someone, do you believe it is unnatural to feel the desire to be affectionate to that someone?

I love my son but I don't desire to have sex with him. Same for my mother. Yes, I feel affection for them, but I do not have sexual desire for either one.


I believe you abuse the word natural. Love for another leads to ultimately showing love to that person. Not giving into your desires is what's unnatural.

And I think that you have perverted the word natural by arguing that it is natural to have sexual desire for another of the same sex.


I believe it has been proven that a significant portion of the human population tend to have special feelings toward people of their own sex, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Your "proof" is hotly debated as to significant portions of the human population. You have made the assertion and I believe the burden of proof rests on you.


Sex is not only meant for reproduction. Sex is an act of mutual deep affection that people share between each other. If you loved someone so much and you felt like that person was everything in your life, wouldn't you want to devour that person, take them into your arms and show them how much you love them?

Again, my son is everything in my life. Sexual desire for him is out of the question.


So explain to me how love is unnatural between homosexuals. Explain to me how it is unnatural for two gay people who have the same tingly sensational feelings toward one another, that two straight people have when they're in love. If the feelings are there then isn't it natural?

If a pedophile has "tingly sensational feelings" toward a 12-year old child it is perversion, even if the 12-year old reciprocates those feelings. Tingly sensational feelings don't make it right, they are simply unnatural, perverted tingly sensational feelings that you rationalize and defend because they are there. Anger and desire to kill someone may be natural but that doesn't mean that one should "give in to those desires".


Why do you believe homosexuality to be vile morally?

Quite simply because God has said it is vile morally.


We live in a country where ethics and morals are standardized democratically.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I believe there is a higher standard than "everyone else says it's OK" or "everyone else is doing it." It is not acceptable when my son says that to me either. Actually, I also believe that we live in a country which by and large still accepts that higher authority. The fact that this is less and less so doesn't mean that actions that were "wrong fifty years ago" are now right.


And if you're going to state something is immoral, justify your reasoning, and if you can't then you probably ought to rethink things out. If your justification is based from your religion, that shouldn't be good enough for you.

God has said it is wrong. I know that's hard for you atheists to accept, but I don't feel a need to defend either his commands or my acceptance of them.


Don't your morals tell you to be loving? How are you being loving when you judge other people?

First of all, I don't hate you (despite the stereotype that you adopt of all Christians based on a few kooks out there; to infer my reaction from someone else who may call himself a Christian is probably illogical, don't you think?) but that doesn't mean that I have to approve of your actions or your "lifestyle". Secondly, I don't judge you; they are God's commands and thus His judgement. Nevertheless, I can view your actions as wrong based on those commands. I love my son but it is my job to judge him and hold him accountable for his actions. God loves you also and He also holds you (and me) accountable.


No, I said what I mean.


Not all men are masculine, and not all women are feminine. And there are many gay men who are masculine, and there are many lesbians who are feminine. Mannerisms have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

I never said anything about mannerisms or masculinity or feminity, so I won't defend your strawman.


What is your evidence that society will crumble?

I said before that society's acceptance of this perversion is itself evidence of it's crumbling.


If the state only allows women and men to marry, then the state bases its definition of marriage from the bible, which would be a violation of "separation of church and state".

I'm sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard. Societies in other non-Christian cultures have historically approved only of the marriage between a man and a woman. The fact that the Bible also holds to the same standard in this matter doesn't make this a violation of [what is already a wrong-headed view of] church-state separation. The fact that you and others don't accept it means very little. Of course, you do have, and I would not depive you of, the right to get involved in the political process and change this, but I also have the right to oppose it, for whatever reasons I choose.

And the restriction to marriage between a man and a woman is not a violation of "equal protection". As Scalia indicated in Lawrence you have the equal right to marry a woman.

scumble

I don't think there's a rational arguement for the "immorality" of homosexuality. There may be sensible medical objections, and many heterosexuals find the thought rather unpleasant, but unless you can say it hurts people outside the relationship in all cases, you can't prove it's immoral.
fromtheright presents no rational objection. It's pointless to ask why he thinks this way, because the same stuff comes out every time, like an automaton. You don't even have to ask him, because you can just look up the answers.
You might as well argue with a vending machine, dave82.

abe smith

Welcome Dave82, I say; you're lucky to have found us; and obviously you've come a long way for a 20 yr.o. (I am not patronizing you, Person. Some of us now old fogies took a damsite longer than that, to tell the World to stuff it.)
You, nor anyone else, need not allow others here (:yguy, fromtheright, et tutti cuanti...) or others anywhere else to dirt on you; just keep on using your brains' logic (=what it's there for) to take down their junk(alleged)"Thinking". Doing good! Abe (well old enuf to be yr grandfather).

scumble

See, you're in good company

NeoApostate

Avoiding the argument of homosexuality in and of itself, I'm gonna stick to the claim made here about what effects the legalization of homosexual marriages would make.

If I understand correctly, fromtheright, you are saying that marriage, or should I say family as based on your second quote, is essential to civilized society - family being defined by a male and female who are spouses raising their children - and that a change from that would lead to crumbling of said society.

The problem I have with this claim is, first of all, that there are other deviations from that family other than homosexual parents - single parents, widowers, orphans raised by other family members or adopted, etc. These have been going on for quite some time, have they not?

Secondly, and more importantly all we are really talking about here is legalizing marriage (as seen in the eyes of the government) of homosexuals. There is no law that keeps homosexual couples apart, or keeps them from adopting children (If I understand correctly, as I seem to recall a case of adoption by a gay or lesbian couple.)

The point is, this is smoke and mirrors to keep benefits away from homosexuals. They already live together as spouses and civilized society hasn't crumbled - and if it has in the opinion of some, its still a mute point as its not illegal nor will it ever be (Dog forbid) for homosexuals to be couples.

So why not make it legal, so that they can enjoy the benefits that married couples enjoy under law?

You may think that certain religions are wicked in the sight of your god and will cause the crumbling of civilized society, but you still stand for their right to peaceably assemble and not be interfered with by the government, because that's what the freedoms of the U. S. is about, right? How is it any different from giving homosexuals the same rights that heterosexual recieve from the government as couples?

James Hamlin

It is a fact that you have perverted the word "natural" by arguing that something that does occur is unnatural. This is nonsensical and utterly ridiculous. If nature is "against" something, it simply doesn't happen. Homosexual attraction occurs, therefore it is natural. If homosexuality is unnatural, then what is it? Supernatural?

Do you see no difference between homosexuality, and pedophilia and murder? The latter are illegal because they infringe on a person's rights. In the pedophile's case, the rights of the minor are assumed to be infringed upon, and in the murderer's case...well duh. How are these applicable at all to an analogy with homosexuality? Homosexuality concerns consenting adults, and has no negative effect on the rights of anyone.

It is the duty of government to uphold the people's rights, not your god's law. You are free to obey his or her law, but you may not use the government as a tool to enforce it upon everyone else.

What it does mean is that society is recognizing that people have a right to choose for themselves what morality they live by. As far as government goes, this right should not be alterable even by democracy.

OK, this makes more sense. What I thought you meant was that society's acceptance would cause society to crumble, leading to anarchy or more crime or the apocalypse or whatever. But now you're saying that the crumbling of society is the acceptance of homosexuality. That doesn't sound that bad. It doesn't result in anything that affects or harms our lives or rights.

So only women have the right to marry men and only men have the right to marry women? This seems flawed to me. Men and women don't seem to be equal in this respect.

A couple years ago, I used to be against government sanction of gay marriages, as well. Then, I learned that the rights of the individual are to be held up foremost, and that the most important criteria for any law is that it does not infringe on the rights of the people, and hopefully protects them.

scigirl

dave82, welcome to infidels, and thank you for that thoughtful and personal post.

fromtheright,

Hmm – the “natural order of male and female being attracted to each other?” Could you please tell me what you mean physiologically by this statement?

Let’s consider sex/desire from a physiological point of view. I spent the month of July with some geriatricians (doctors for old folks). Last night in fact, I read an article about men and women losing their sex drive as they age, in addition to having medical problems that interfere with sex (hip replacement, vaginal dryness, loss of erections, etc). Not to mention no chance of producing offspring.

What is my point? I think there is a much stronger argument, from an anatomical and physiological point of view, that sex between old people is less natural than sex between young gay people. In any medical definition of sex, or sex drive. So – should we make sex/marriage illegal for people over 60?

Plus - gay sex is natural – i.e. found in nature. Do you have some other definition of “natural” that I’m not aware of?

But – even if it isn’t natural, who cares? Beta Blockers are unnatural. Maybe we shouldn’t let people on blood pressure meds get married. Driving in a car on the highway is unnatural and dangerous. Going into space is unnatural – and extremely harmful to our bones and muscles. Etc, etc etc.

Gay love and sex seems a lot more natural to me than people riding their bike across france for a month. Or even congregating in a tax-free shelter with a cross on top singing about some long-haired hippie who died 2000 years ago. You see - using your type of argument - which is subjective and not consistently applied - is just frankly a poor way to define moralilty.
So are you saying that people with cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, or myasthenia gravis should be denied the right to marry?
I have this girlfriend who was raped by a man. Therefore, I now think that all heterosexual sex is criminal.

I think the appropriate comparison is the love you have for your wife. Have you ever stopped to think about what your life would be like if your love with her were condemned by society? If you couldn’t talk about her at work? If you couldn’t go out in public and simply hold her hand? If you had to hide your relationship, your feelings, your love from your families? Have you ever thought about it that way? Or are you just grossed out that men put dicks in other men’s anuses, and so you feel justified in your bigotry?

I’ll tell you something, fromtheright. Thinking about my 80-year-old patients having sex completely grosses me out. But I would never deny them basic human rights because of it. And I am supposedly an atheist with no morals. You are supposed to be a loving, forgiving Christian. Hmm – there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Why? I think people who eat broccoli or mushrooms are gross. Again, I would never deny them basic human rights (but I might not go to their house for dinner).

Personal distaste should not be the sole motivating reason we make something illegal. Read my example again about old people having sex. Does that gross you out at all? If so, how is that different than the gross-out from gay sex? Why allow the former and not the latter? Your argument from repugnance is weak and inconsistent, not to mention completely subjective and unenforcable.

Again, you keep using this word natural. Please define what you mean by that term, and how you can use unnatural to condemn specifically gay sex, but not all the other myriad unnatural things that humans now do because of our evolved frontal lobes.

So how many people need to be gay before we can give them rights? 5 percent? 50 percent? Why does it even matter how many people are gay – if it’s wrong to discriminate against 50 black men, than isn’t it equally wrong to discriminate against 1 black man?

Why can’t you stick to a comparison which makes sense – i.e. your wife? Or maybe you are afraid to. You don’t want to think that gay love can be as meaningful and wonderful as your relationship with your wife, because that might eventually lead to tolerance and understanding of how they feel. God forbid.

Again with the non sequiters. Pedophilia and murder hurt other people. Consenting relationships are not the same thing. Did you actually read dave82’s post? Read it again – and think about the relationship you have with your wife when you read it. See if there are any parallels – then come and talk to us about your righteous indignation.

Aside from that reason, is there any other reason to be opposed to gay marriage? If not, than do you think that’s a good enough reason for the secular government to impose sanctions on homosexuals?

Isn’t a marriage between two atheists just as “evil” to god as a marriage between two gay people? If you are going to use religion as a reason, why stop at gay marriage? Why not forbid me to marry – since my marriage would not be blessed by God either? Once again, we find inconsistencies in your application of "gods law."

I have never seen an atheist or gay person use that in their argument as to why gay sex is not immoral. You are arguing with straw men.

In Colorado, there is a growing movement of pastors and other religious folk who are supportive of gay marriage. They realize that some parts of the bible are out of date (i.e. shellfish, slavery, condemnation of gay marriage) because they were written by primitive men who did not have all the facts. It's not just an atheist/christian debate, so don't pretend that it is.

Why do you put “lifestyle” in quotes? Is his love for his boyfriend a joke to you? Is that your way of demeaning his feelings? What if I said oh from the rights “relationship” with his wife. How would that make you feel?

If you do only one thing with this post – I urge you to really think about your relationship with your wife, and how you would feel if it were suddenly condemned by society. Or if people put it in "quotes" and degraded it.

Please I urge you to think about it – just for a minute or two. Gay people’s feelings and love is real. It’s not a joke, it’s not just an episode of Will and Grace. It’s real – just as real as your love for your wife. Think about it.

scigirl

P.S. If you have thought about everything but still insist on denying gays their basic rights, than well at least I tried. In fact – I’ll switch sides and help your argument out. Here are some great quotes you can use for later – just change the word “interracial” to gay, and you are set!!

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCC...icked=3&item=12
Dr. James Owens, a former Dean of the American University School of Business, hypothesizes that a second civil war is imminent and suggests that Southern states secede from "the Union" in hope of creating segregated living spaces for the country's different races. In his scenario, the "silent, white majority" will become shocked into taking action by the catastrophic genetic effects of interracial marriage and by the inevitable rise of an accompanying police state.

From Justice Buchanan: "No such claim for the intermarriage of the races could be supported; by no sort of valid reasoning could it be found to be a foundation of good citizenship or a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." He could find nothing in the U.S. Constitution, he wrote, that would "prohibit the State from enacting legislation to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens, or which denies the power of the State to regulate the marriage relation so that it shall not have a mongrel breed of citizens.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04...alouis.htm#Only
Less than 30 years ago many in this Nation believed that allowing interracial couples to marry would seriously denigrate American society, and many State laws reflected that. There were many justifications to uphold the laws which stated that marriage between races were forbidden and criminal. Three major justifications are explained by the author which are: White supremacy, protection of White womanhood, and the prevention of mixed race offspring. The third justification was based on popular belief that children of interracial marriages were mentally and physically inferior to pure White race children.

There see how helpful I am! Hope that helps your crusade to keep America moral, pure, and righteous.

edited to fix coding errors