Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[Nony]

It's not so much that God allows you to do whatever you want and you just get a free pass. It's more like God will forgive it, but we should still try and play nice with the other kids.

And really, skimming through these mountain of posts, I just have one last thing to say:
Please think before you post implications that being religious means getting brainwashed by religious leaders. You don't need religion to be influenced by others. Think about that when you're posting your own thoughts, claiming that Christians are uncapable of coming to any intelligently-founded beliefs of their own.

Basically: Play nice, children. ;P

[Lunar]

[quote name='Miss Anonymous']It's not so much that God allows you to do whatever you want and you just get a free pass. It's more like God will forgive it, but we should still try and play nice with the other kids.

And really, skimming through these mountain of posts, I just have one last thing to say:
Please think before you post implications that being religious means getting brainwashed by religious leaders. You don't need religion to be influenced by others. Think about that when you're posting your own thoughts, claiming that Christians are uncapable of coming to any intelligently-founded beliefs of their own.

Basically: Play nice, children. ;P[/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Sienna"]Um. That's kinda what I meant. God let's you do whatever you want, but you have to pay for it. What goes around...........comes around.[/COLOR]

[Carbon Series]

Well im not much for God and to be honest with you I cant say as i would be over bothered about the sexuality of any given person. If you love someone you love someone, same sex relationships as far as im concerned isnt really an issue.

However, when it comes to same sex marriage, i think that does change the situation. The bible in my opinion is quite clear on where it stands with this and, assuming God does exist, would lead me to believe that God would also have these views. So no, i dont think homosexual [i]marriage[/i] is right and that it goes against the tradition of marriage.

[tsundere mecha]

[quote name='chibi-master']Okay, E.D. stated in a different thread that being gay or lesbian was wrong. And rather than be an a** and spam up The 13th Man's thread with that arguement, I decided to start this thread.

Okay, I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with a person being bi, les or gay. People can love whomever they wish. But I understand that some people dissagree. I don't understand why, though. And since I know someone will bring this up, YES, I KNOW that the bible says being bi, lesbian or gay is wrong. My rebutle is, DO YOUR OWN D*** THINKING AND STOP LETTING THE BIBLE DO IT FOR YOU!!!

Anyway, your opinion please? And by the way, please be civil, guys. I don't need a bunch of "EEEW!!! DATS SO MESSED UP!!! WTF?!?!", okay?[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with you; I haven't seen this guy's thread, but I know that being a part of the GLBTQ is nothing to be ashamed of. Being bisexual myself, I know that God still loves me and everyone even if you have feelings of infatuation for someone of the same sex. :3

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Yay! Of course!!! God loves you whatever you do! Whether you lie or kill someone, he still loves you! Isn't that awesome! :catgirl:
[youtube=Don't Worry, Be Happy]yjnvSQuv-H4[/youtube][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Wow, this place was active as all get-out today. First, my initial responses to what has transpired.

Is it just me, or am I the ONLY PERSON who isn't constantly trying to Bible Bash in order to try to make myself look better? Seriously, the entire thing is a red-herring fallacy; assuming just because you don't like what someone else does or what a book says, you are instantly correct. That is also an ad-hominem fallacy to just try to dismiss any statements only because they are "Christian" or "Secular", and try to take some obscure passage out of context and put your own modern spin onto it.

Seriously. I will get to the actual topic at hand, instead of trying to debate whether or not purchasing slaves was correct or incorrect.

[quote name='TimeChaser']1) It strengthens the emotional connection between two people in love. And you can't expect people to accept the idea that they should go back to sex-as-means-of-procreation-only. What about everyone's rights to live their life the way they chose? Not everyone wants to get married, and not everyone wants to have kids. You can't expect women to give up their rights to their own bodies and just go back to being baby factories simply because that's what our biology is designed for. We are so far beyond mere biology now.[/quote]

You know, I have tried my hardest to try to figure out what you mean by "in love". From the hints I have picked up, it is some emotional state that is not sexual that is enhanced by sex that makes sex O.K. by the pleasure aspect of sex.

How is this even possible? If a relationship has sex, it is a sexual relationship already and the given condition of "strengthening" the relationship isn't of importance anymore. Any "strengthening" done by sex is done by the fact that the relationship just became a sexual one, or one where two persons do the equivalent of injecting a shot of morphine into each other. Fulfilling lustful desires doesn't somehow make them alright. If it isn't a sexual relationship, then sex has absolutely no place.

Women's rights is a red herring and a straw-man. The greatest problem with everyone living their life the way they choose is their destructive nature towards other individuals, and towards society as a whole. Murderers, for example, MUST be stopped from killing in order to preserve a society. Same thing with litterbugs, thieves, hackers, monopolies, insurgents, speeders, drug dealers, and the like. People must be protected from themselves, because humans have demonstrated time and again that left in a a state of anarchy or in a personal devices they will destroy themselves, or be destroyed by the people around them.



[quote name='TimeChaser']2) I find this argument old, tiring, and lame. Homosexuality is not in any way related to polygamy, pedophilia, rape, etc. When a gay couple wants to get married, they are just that, [I]a couple[/I], a unit of two. Two people who love and have a commitment toward each other the same as any heterosexual couple.[/quote]

Yes it is. It forgoes the reproductive aspect and goes for vane objectifying. Heterosexual relationships, they can (not always) be ordered toward procreation instead of vanity or entertainment, and this can only be done by the biological dichotomy of male and female.


[quote name='TimeChaser']3) I have already explained how sex is connected to our emotions for another person. While we may have come from a simple biological urge to mate and breed, humanity has developed emotionally in ways that transcend that.[/quote]

So, your other aspect is the emotional satisfaction... I don't believe I forgot that part in my evaluation. Pathological appeals are emotional appeals, after all.

So anyway, I looked into a dictionary, and I think I can see where some confusion comes from. When I refer to "pathological appeal", I am referring to the original three persuasive proofs and desires that were outlined by Aristotle. I am not referring to the study of the course of diseases. Though this may be a cause for confusion, I will hereby refer to the emotional appeal as just that: emotional appeal.


[quote name='TimeChaser']4) See what I said in #1, and also: gay couples cannot get married, obviously. And they are fighting for the right to so, also obviously.[/quote]

Yes, they can. Same-sex couples can't get married. Homosexuals have every right to marriage that you or I have (I am assuming you are not a homosexual).

[quote name='TimeChaser']5) I have no problem admitting that society does have problems related to sex, but it's hardly a problem shared by the entire population. And going back to a procreation-only system is not the right answer, nor is it even plausible to believe that would solve everything.[/quote]

It is a growing problem, unfortunately. People use the statements from your point #1 to justify willingly ignoring any function of sex towards procreation (something in itself a beautiful thing), and just go for the other appeals of sex, and use those as their main means. Because they cannot accurately define what they experience when they have an endorphin high, they attach abstract ideas to it.

The biggest thing that should be done is a cultural shift, away from free-consequenceless sex, and towards one that reserves sex for marriage and orders it towards procreation. Though unlikely to occur, a cultural shift would bring with it the resolutions to many of the problems we face today. Will there always be stragglers, violations, and individuals who go against the norm? Of course there will. However, it will no longer be popular, encouraged, or an industry with more value than the sports industry.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]This is ridiculous, and I'll tell you why.

Your definition of marriage is flawed. You assume marriage is an institution that aims primarily at procreation; this is fundamentally wrong. Marriage at its core and foundation is a survival mechanism for the two parties involved. It allows the pooling of resources, increases the purchasing power of the couple, and increases efficiency of almost all tasks related to survival (finding food, mutual protection, etc).

The entity of "marriage" in this day and age is still fundamentally the same. While we fetishize it and project notions of "happiness" and "finding the love of your life," marriage is still for the mutual benefit of both parties involved for survival purposes. Governmental policy is heavily indicative of this -- married couples have MANY more benefits than an unmarried couple. It's simply beneficial to marry up, from a fiscal perspective.

Gays can and do live together if they are a couple. They live their lives as a married couple would. The only thing that is different is their lack of access to these benefits that heterosexuals are afforded.

The ability to procreate is a moot point -- what of infertile couples? Should they be denied the ability to marry, simply based on this [arbitrary/irrational] criterion?[/font][/QUOTE]

And do you suppose that it is just happenstance that the proven best environment to raise children is a married different sex couple with well-defined roles? Is it happenstance that marriages, until recently, were done to carry on family lines with property and possessions? Just mere coincidence that marriages have been based around the biological function until it was romanticized?

Marriage, like all relationships, is a social contract that is drafted between individuals. There are various social contracts that can be drafted, like respecting family lines or agreeing to be room mates. Establishing roles as leaders, and jobs in society. The key difference between any sort of business union and marriage is the reproductive aspect. Two companies can merge together much in the same manner that two people can live together. That doesn't mean that we should treat business partners as married couples. You must not forget the reason why it is done: The reproductive aspect, or the lust aspect.

Same-sex couples live in the same manner as the lust aspect, and this is not a trend to be encouraged, even in heterosexual couples. My discouragement of this aspect is preference-neutral. Same-sex couples, regardless of all of the romanticizing, isn't ordered toward procreation. It can't, because the aspect of procreation requires that the other member be of the opposite sex. Do not forget why it is other people are condoning this action, either.

In regards to people with disabilities: That relationship is still ordered toward procreation. "ordered towards" does not mean "merely a means to". It is the nature of the union between different sexes pledging fidelity that creates this effect. An outside effect (usually unknown) limiting fertility doesn't change this effect. However, if it is given that someone does pursue after infertile members of the opposite sex in an attempt to avoid having children based upon sex, that is also to be looked down upon. When I hear that the amount of men in their early 20s getting vasectomies is increasing, I think it is an abomination.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial][COLOR="DarkRed"]Crimson[/COLOR], you might as well stop trying now. The only way one can confidently claim that same-sex marriages or relationships are wrong is in the context of religion, and claiming religion will achieve only an attritionary argument, since on the one hand you have those backed by the laws of their faith and on the other you have those backed by the laws of reason.

Basically, as [COLOR=DarkRed]Kastom[/COLOR] tried to point out before (although his point was crudely fashioned), without a clear definition of Right and Wrong one cannot disavow at all the rights of same-sex couples in anything.

To use psychological arguments traces directly back to religion, for according to Christianity that is not how we were designed. To use physical arguments traces directly back to religion, for according to Christianity that is not how we were designed. Point of order, the only solid ground for an argument against same-sex couples is that such a union is a [I]direct perversion[/I] of God's creation.

And since that line of thinking has no place here, since religion is a personal and not universal application, there is no solid ground for anyone. Thus in this context, I would argue [I]for[/I] same-sex rights, despite my beliefs against them.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Ah, but this is also true for the cases of rape, murder, environmentalism, and burglary. All laws impose a morality, for whatever basis and for whatever reason.

The particular reason why I have argued for retaining marriage in this thread is the following: The preservation of a healthy society. This is a context that the majority of people in westernized nations unanimously agree on. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that objectifying, vanity based sex is negatively affecting society as well, which is why my opponents either try to distance homosexuality from this and call it "love", or they try to say that it is a necessary evil for the "greater freedom".

So you see, even though I use Christianity as my fundamental "walking around" basis for evaluation, I don't need to make a single reference to the scripture, either in coming to my conclusions or developing arguments.


[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"]Have you even read the Constitution of the United States? The Constitution forms a [I]secular[/I] document, it does not appeal to God or any form of Christianity. To make a point here the language is quite clear: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." Key word being [I]people[/I], not God.

Part of the point was to grant the freedom to worship or not according to your own beliefs instead of dictating or forcing everyone to follow one paticular religion. It clearly states here:
[INDENT]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/INDENT]
So no, it was not founded under Christianity. You could say it was founded to grant more freedom to be a Christian, but not for Christianity to actually use religious values to dictate laws.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I have been hearing this a lot. Of course, the document referencing the date to "The Year of Our Lord" and our founding fathers constantly making reference to God outside of the document are ignored to say that somehow, deep down inside, the constitution is atheist.

You see, they established an unbiased document (not a secular one) because they didn't want another "Church of England" forming. They wanted to practice their form of Christianity freely, which is why they didn't want to establish law that made it legal for states to have their own church.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Women's rights is a red herring and a straw-man...


The biggest thing that should be done is a cultural shift, away from free-consequenceless sex, and towards one that reserves sex for marriage and orders it towards procreation. Though unlikely to occur, a cultural shift would bring with it the resolutions to many of the problems we face today. Will there always be stragglers, violations, and individuals who go against the norm? Of course there will. However, it will no longer be popular, encouraged, or an industry with more value than the sports industry.[/QUOTE]

I find that attitude frankly disrespectful, to blithely dismiss rights, and I'm sure most people would agree with me.

And what is "the norm"? Laws are made to keep us safe, yes, but not to restrict everyone's freedom. You can't order people to have sex only as a means of having children. This isn't the dark ages where things like that can be policed by a puritanical and absolutist system.

I can see that you're someone who will never be satisfied unless we are all under that kind of oppression, so I don't think it's any use to argue with you any further.

To express myself with less pique, what I mean is that a system that is absolutist in the direction you suggest is hardly a solution, and is taking us back to the kind of oppression humanity has slaved under for centuries.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Red herring: A logical fallacy that attempts to justify an issue by complete distraction. We are talking about homosexuality, not about womens rights. Don't distract from the issue.

Straw man: Also called the No True Scottsman. This characterizes the opponents argument into a false generalization, then beats down the generalization as if it were the opponent. The fact is, I am not advocating that women should be baby factories.

Anyone agreeing with you on that point is agreeing with a mistake in thought processing.


Now, if we are talking about rights, [i]that is what we are discussing[/i]. We are debating about the rights that someone has, and whether or not those rights should or do exist. Because that is the issue that is on the table, it is not going to be immediately assumed. That is known as begging the question. Since it is about the actual practice, calling my stance "Oppression" is also assuming the conclusion when debating the conclusion.

When I said "the norm", I was not referring to any absolute standard about what constitutes the correct manner of existence. I was referring to a statistical one; an average or a median. If you have any average for behavior (say, that people eat food pleasurable to their tastes), there will always be those who oppose or stand against the average (those who eat food that is not pleasurable to their tastes). It is a fact of life.

Laws keep us safe by restricting freedom. I do not have the right to murder my neighbor because I don't like the way he dresses. Though technically the law doesn't stop me from doing so, it tries to discourage so by punishment, and then punishes the violators.

I am aware that I cannot command people to have sex only for children. That is why my goal is for a cultural shift in ideals. The best I could do is try to convince them, and also try to limit the causes of the issue. What I can also do is not condone these actions, and attempt to restrain the cultural shift. It is a losing battle, but the fact that it is losing doesn't make it not worth fighting.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Crimson Spider']I have been hearing this a lot. Of course, the document referencing the date to "The Year of Our Lord" and our founding fathers constantly making reference to God outside of the document are ignored to say that somehow, deep down inside, the constitution is atheist.

You see, they established an unbiased document (not a secular one) because they didn't want another "Church of England" forming. They wanted to practice their form of Christianity freely, which is why they didn't want to establish law that made it legal for states to have their own church.[/QUOTE]Read up a bit to get what I was talking about and already stated: [URL="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm"][U]Link[/U][/URL] I did not say atheist, you chose to add that implication to what I said. Not based on Christianity does not = atheist document.

Also you haven't grasped the fact that no matter how many times you come in and continue with the same insistence that others are wrong, they're not going to change their opinion to match what you want to see. I do not debate with you for this reason, bashing someone over the head with the same argument again and again with variations on the wording is, to put it bluntly, a waste of people's time. [/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[strike]... one teeny problem with that:

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"]The Constitution forms a secular document[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

If you want to go back on the "secular" statement, I"ll let you.[/strike]

EDIT: Nevermind. Your correct on that statement. Just re-looked up the definition of "Secular".




Anyway, I am well aware of the fact that people will continue to believe what they believe, regardless of how many fallacies I expose, whatever logic I give them, however many times I clarify my stances, or the truth in the matter. Regardless, I will continue to do so, for many reasons

#1: There is a very small minority who will actually change their opinion on this matter.

#2: It refines my position on the issue by having a greater understanding of my opponents stances.

#3: It serves as practice in writing and reasoning, helping me to understand new ideas about how the world either does or doesn't work.


So I will continue to do so, probably just as much as you would continue to say that the Right-Winged community cannot claim any relationship between the constitution and Christianity.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Crimson Spider']EDIT: Nevermind. Your correct on that statement. Just re-looked up the definition of "Secular".[/QUOTE]I was about to clarify that for you. But since you provided the edit, there is no need.

Also I never claimed that there was no connection between the the Constitution and Christianity, people often don't get the concept that it was made that way on purpose. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

So they knew what they were doing by making it that way, it's a fine distinction, but still one nevertheless. They designed it to protect Christianity (or lack of) by deliberately excluding it to a certain extent. [/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The biggest thing that should be done is a cultural shift, away from free-consequenceless sex, and towards one that reserves sex for marriage and orders it towards procreation. Though unlikely to occur, a cultural shift would bring with it the resolutions to many of the problems we face today. Will there always be stragglers, violations, and individuals who go against the norm? Of course there will. However, it will no longer be popular, encouraged, or an industry with more value than the sports industry.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I don't really understand why you care if sex is done with the intent of creating life. It seems like you're putting a biological function on a pedestal. Sex is like eating or defecating -- it happens in all (most?) species and it happens for a specific reason. I fail to see what's so admirable about it, to be frank haha.

[QUOTE]And do you suppose that it is just happenstance that the proven best environment to raise children is a married different sex couple with well-defined roles?[/QUOTE]
I think this is just flatly false. Show me "proof" that different sex couples provide an appreciably different environment for raising healthy children.

[QUOTE]Is it happenstance that marriages, until recently, were done to carry on family lines with property and possessions?[/QUOTE]
I do not think marriage was originally conceived to carry on property. I would argue that the institution we now have as "marriage" was originally just the pairing of people for survival and evolved to have this set of values and this fabricated ideology.

[QUOTE]Just mere coincidence that marriages have been based around the biological function until it was romanticized?[/QUOTE]
I'll give you this point -- it is undeniable that sex is central to marriage. However your desire to uphold an antiquated ideal seems strange. Sex, while important, is no longer inextricable to the institution of marriage. People have sex out of wedlock, and plenty of couples have sex without intention of procreation. It seems arbitrary to exclude gays simply because they cannot procreate. Reproduction has lost its importance in society -- in fact, we have too many people on the planet.

[QUOTE]Marriage, like all relationships, is a social contract that is drafted between individuals. There are various social contracts that can be drafted, like respecting family lines or agreeing to be room mates. Establishing roles as leaders, and jobs in society. The key difference between any sort of business union and marriage is the reproductive aspect. Two companies can merge together much in the same manner that two people can live together. That doesn't mean that we should treat business partners as married couples. You must not forget the reason why it is done: The reproductive aspect, or the lust aspect.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you mean "emotional." I would say that most couples value the "emotional" component to their marriage more than the simple ability to procreate. That can be done within or without marriage.

[QUOTE]Same-sex couples live in the same manner as the lust aspect, and this is not a trend to be encouraged, even in heterosexual couples. My discouragement of this aspect is preference-neutral. Same-sex couples, regardless of all of the romanticizing, isn't ordered toward procreation. It can't, because the aspect of procreation requires that the other member be of the opposite sex. Do not forget why it is other people are condoning this action, either.[/QUOTE]
I don't get why this is such a central piece to your argument.

[QUOTE]It is the nature of the union between different sexes pledging fidelity that creates this effect. An outside effect (usually unknown) limiting fertility doesn't change this effect. However, if it is given that someone does pursue after infertile members of the opposite sex in an attempt to avoid having children based upon sex, that is also to be looked down upon. When I hear that the amount of men in their early 20s getting vasectomies is increasing, I think it is an abomination.[/QUOTE]
I guess this cements your commitment to procreation. Perhaps you could explain why you're so wedded to this relatively unimportant, unremarkable process? Sex and reproduction are so idolized that we fail to remember that [i]humans are simply glorified apes[/i]. We have bigger brains, and therefore ascribe more importance to our mundane actions. This is sort of the foundation for religion and "natural rights," both of which I'm not a fan of.

[QUOTE]The particular reason why I have argued for retaining marriage in this thread is the following: The preservation of a healthy society. This is a context that the majority of people in westernized nations unanimously agree on. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that objectifying, vanity based sex is negatively affecting society as well, which is why my opponents either try to distance homosexuality from this and call it "love", or they try to say that it is a necessary evil for the "greater freedom".[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why you get to call gay relations "objectifying" or "vanity based sex." It's a weak analysis of social movements, at best.

If you can objectively show me that gay sex, and more particularly gay marriage have been detrimental to "the preservation of a healthy society" I'll take your points more seriously. Until then, I'll be forced to consider you a bigot -- no better than one who considers interracial marriage detrimental to "the preservation of a healthy society."

Perhaps we could also get your definition of "healthy," and your explanation on why our society is healthy in the first place.[/font]

[Claire]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Same-sex couples live in the same manner as the lust aspect, and this is not a trend to be encouraged, even in heterosexual couples. My discouragement of this aspect is preference-neutral. Same-sex couples, regardless of all of the romanticizing, isn't ordered toward procreation.[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]You're assuming that because a gay couple can't get married, they aren't going to have sex. Um, sorry, but people can have sex whenever they feel like it, regardless of what they're wearing on their left ring fingers.

This is an absurd sweeping generalization. If what you say is true then I must be a tragic outlier. I have never had ANY sexual desires ever - not even to simply kiss - and at 17 I'm not too sure I'm going to develop any in my lifetime. This doesn't mean that I've never felt attracted towards people. On the contrary. Right now I'm battling constant sadness that springs from my emotions. I'm always thinking about this person and I just want them to feel the same towards me. But even though I would love for us to be a couple, there's no way I would ever want to have sex with them.

Not everyone is a lustful maniac. Claiming that same-sex couples are in it for the spooning completely ignores that they're human beings too, just the same as heterosexuals.

I can't imagine a straight person wanting to get married just so they could procreate. Marriage is too romanticized, and tons and tons of people have ambitious hearts.[/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']It can't, because the aspect of procreation requires that the other member be of the opposite sex. Do not forget why it is other people are condoning this action, either.[/quote]

[font=arial]This is also not true. There has been a study that proves women could self-fertilize using some kind of marrow from their own bones. I don't have time to look it up right now, though.[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]This is also not true. There has been a study that proves women could self-fertilize using some kind of marrow from their own bones. I don't have time to look it up right now, though.[/font][/QUOTE]Since I started a thread on that very topic and it includes a link to the article in question: [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=59550"][U]Asexual Reproduction?[/U][/URL] I'll provide the info on that.

And yes I know the title is inaccurate. I was just aiming to catch people's attention so they'd actually read the thread. That and the actual article name was too long.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Crimson Spider']Yes, they can. Same-sex couples can't get married. Homosexuals have every right to marriage that you or I have (I am assuming you are not a homosexual).[/quote]The problem with this statement is that they do not have every right to marry that you or I have. Every means that [I]all[/I] is possible, in other words, the greatest possible degree of being able to be married. If one possibility is closed, then it's not every right, it's every right EXCEPT this choice; which in this case is same sex marriages.

After watching you in action, I'm in agreement with [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] as to the usefulness (or lack of) of the current discussion. [/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I don't really understand why you care if sex is done with the intent of creating life. It seems like you're putting a biological function on a pedestal. Sex is like eating or defecating -- it happens in all (most?) species and it happens for a specific reason. I fail to see what's so admirable about it, to be frank haha.[/quote][/font]

Sex is a very important aspect in a culture, and reflects the nature of the culture, along with any of the problems it may have. It is similar to eating in this aspect. If everyone in a population is willingly anorexic, this reflects a problem. The issue that causes problems in sex is also related to the issue that is caused by problems in sex. It is similar to how an anorexic nation will affect their families, friends, work force, and food industry with their current status.

The important aspect isn't the actual action itself. The biggest problem comes with why it is something is done the way it is done.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I think this is just flatly false. Show me "proof" that different sex couples provide an appreciably different environment for raising healthy children.[/font][/quote].

That has proven itself very difficult, since statistics regarding same-sex couples and children are very lacking in their evaluations, and are usually full of holes that immediately invalidate any claims.

Though I can come to an independent conclusion from the matter through various links. I will do that now:

[url]http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/benefits/index.html[/url]

Marriage is universally healthy and beneficial in the contexts that it currently exists in. However, we have a few problems with the effects of same-sex marriage, listed here:

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp[/url]

and here:

[url]http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf[/url]


Such as the higher divorce rates and an increasing number of out-of-wedlock births. Those are not advantageous, and it is generally accepted that this is a negative outcome. Example here:

[url]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst051304a.cfm[/url]


Personally, I think the most comprehensive article that I had found on the issue was the following:

[url]http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf[/url]

This, if you are to read any of the articles in their entirety, is the most interesting read here.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I do not think marriage was originally conceived to carry on property. I would argue that the institution we now have as "marriage" was originally just the pairing of people for survival and evolved to have this set of values and this fabricated ideology.[/quote][/font] Records of marriage in the earliest cultures show extremely heavy emphasis on property, and lineage. Though that isn't to say that those were the only benefits.



[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I'll give you this point -- it is undeniable that sex is central to marriage. However your desire to uphold an antiquated ideal seems strange. Sex, while important, is no longer inextricable to the institution of marriage. People have sex out of wedlock, and plenty of couples have sex without intention of procreation. It seems arbitrary to exclude gays simply because they cannot procreate. Reproduction has lost its importance in society -- in fact, we have too many people on the planet.[/quote][/font]

It is arbitrary to exclude gays. That is why I don't. The state of sex in society as a whole is heading towards a deplorable state. Homosexuals are a minority of very little relevance in their practice that was made culturally relevant by society. Homosexuals are a battleground over the bigger issue of freedom, authority, and responsibility.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Perhaps you mean "emotional." I would say that most couples value the "emotional" component to their marriage more than the simple ability to procreate. That can be done within or without marriage.[/quote] [/font]
What would be the difference between this emotional component and another emotional component of a relationship like family or friends? The backing up by sex. Business partners can be "emotionally involved" just as much as any other couple, not including the sex. But to include sex, that is what is important in the social contract of marriage. That is the key defining factor between marriage and any business proposition. The foundations for this sex, those are really where problems lie.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I don't get why this is such a central piece to your argument. [/font][/quote]
Back in my first post, when I reasoned about the nature of sexual attractions and perception, I came to a conclusion about this nature. This lead me to a conclusion about the nature of a particular example (homosexuality) in the very large list of sexual preferences and desires. Really, the issue of lust was the starting point for which I launched my argument.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I guess this cements your commitment to procreation. Perhaps you could explain why you're so wedded to this relatively unimportant, unremarkable process? Sex and reproduction are so idolized that we fail to remember that [i]humans are simply glorified apes[/i]. We have bigger brains, and therefore ascribe more importance to our mundane actions. This is sort of the foundation for religion and "natural rights," both of which I'm not a fan of.[/quote][/font]

Because, as the links I listed above state, it isn't an unimportant and unremarkable process. It is very important to society.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I don't understand why you get to call gay relations "objectifying" or "vanity based sex." It's a weak analysis of social movements, at best.

If you can objectively show me that gay sex, and more particularly gay marriage have been detrimental to "the preservation of a healthy society" I'll take your points more seriously. Until then, I'll be forced to consider you a bigot -- no better than one who considers interracial marriage detrimental to "the preservation of a healthy society."

Perhaps we could also get your definition of "healthy," and your explanation on why our society is healthy in the first place.[/font][/QUOTE]

Well, I came to that conclusion based on reasoning from the first post. You can reference it on the first page.

Anyway, in regards to gay sex, it is the number one way of transferring aids, according to avert.org upwards of 65% of aids is transferred through Males having Sex with Males (or MSM). This is due to incredibly high amount of promiscuosity prior to the marriage movement. The tearing of mucosa and infection rates is also increased for MSM relationships. BTW, I always hate it when someone generalizes my position into one similar to discrimination against inter-racial marriages. There is a vast difference between inter-racial marriages, and same-sex marriages.

In regards to "healthy", a very simple definition would be something that is beneficial to the parts or people involved, or something that is not destructive to the players.



[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]You're assuming that because a gay couple can't get married, they aren't going to have sex. Um, sorry, but people can have sex whenever they feel like it, regardless of what they're wearing on their left ring fingers.[/quote][/font]

I know. The marriage issue is really tertiary to the sex issue. BTW, I'm not assuming that a gay couple would cease having sex because they aren't married.



[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]This is an absurd sweeping generalization. If what you say is true then I must be a tragic outlier. I have never had ANY sexual desires ever - not even to simply kiss - and at 17 I'm not too sure I'm going to develop any in my lifetime. This doesn't mean that I've never felt attracted towards people. On the contrary. Right now I'm battling constant sadness that springs from my emotions. I'm always thinking about this person and I just want them to feel the same towards me. But even though I would love for us to be a couple, there's no way I would ever want to have sex with them.[/quote][/font]

Your anecdote really doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say here?


[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Not everyone is a lustful maniac. Claiming that same-sex couples are in it for the spooning completely ignores that they're human beings too, just the same as heterosexuals. [/quote][/font]

Right. Not everyone is a lustful maniac. I am acknowledging that they are human beings that maniacally lust just like every other sexual preference.

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I can't imagine a straight person wanting to get married just so they could procreate. Marriage is too romanticized, and tons and tons of people have ambitious hearts.[/FONT][/quote]

I can. I've met plenty of couples that "want children" before they want to "Hit that nasty style". The activity-focused side is more character of the male behavior than of the female behavior, but neither is completely isolated.


[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]The problem with this statement is that they do not have every right to marry that you or I have. Every means that [I]all[/I] is possible, in other words, the greatest possible degree of being able to be married. If one possibility is closed, then it's not every right, it's every right EXCEPT this choice; which in this case is same sex marriages.

After watching you in action, I'm in agreement with [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] as to the usefulness (or lack of) of the current discussion. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

Last time I checked, the law doesn't suddenly show favor one relationship instead of another. If you are talking about hte law aspect, then they have all the rights, and are free to exercise them, regardless of their will to do so.

If you are not talking about law, then they can't have the rights, regardless of what law states. This is due to the fact that they are not a couple with a biological dicthotomy capable of producing children through intercourse. No amount of legal changes will create a "make believe" world where this is true.


Anyway, it is amazing how so many people have idolized the homosexual. Really, one of the best arguments against same-sex marriages is that it is simply un-necessary. The small percentage of those who practice it, they don't make up any substantial changes to society. The burden of proof should be on those who are pro-same-sex marriages. But alas, the argument really isn't about that. It is about freedom.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Sex is a very important aspect in a culture, and reflects the nature of the culture, along with any of the problems it may have. It is similar to eating in this aspect. If everyone in a population is willingly anorexic, this reflects a problem. The issue that causes problems in sex is also related to the issue that is caused by problems in sex. It is similar to how an anorexic nation will affect their families, friends, work force, and food industry with their current status.

The important aspect isn't the actual action itself. The biggest problem comes with why it is something is done the way it is done.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Because mainstream scientific research has generally concluded that being gay [i]is not a choice[/i], I think this is a problematic point you make. If sexual orientation is not a choice, it is impossible to influence it via cultural dynamics, therefore the new prevalence of homosexuality is not due to societal moral decay or anything equally ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the percentage of gays in any society remains roughly constant at any point of time, in any society. Therefore this new prevalence of homosexuality is simply because more people are feeling comfortable about being themselves, rather than putting on a charade of heterosexuality.

[QUOTE]That has proven itself very difficult, since statistics regarding same-sex couples and children are very lacking in their evaluations, and are usually full of holes that immediately invalidate any claims.

Though I can come to an independent conclusion from the matter through various links. I will do that now:

[url]http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/benefits/index.html[/url]

Marriage is universally healthy and beneficial in the contexts that it currently exists in. However, we have a few problems with the effects of same-sex marriage, listed here:

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp[/url]

and here:

[url]http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf[/url]


Such as the higher divorce rates and an increasing number of out-of-wedlock births. Those are not advantageous, and it is generally accepted that this is a negative outcome. Example here:

[url]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst051304a.cfm[/url]


Personally, I think the most comprehensive article that I had found on the issue was the following:

[url]http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf[/url]

This, if you are to read any of the articles in their entirety, is the most interesting read here.[/QUOTE]
These links, while interesting, left me with a few questions. First, what does gay marriage have to do with heterosexual marriage, and how would the implementation of the former impact the latter? Second, how is the rate of [i]births[/i] at all related to [i]gay[/i] marriage? It seems counterintuitive. Third, how is a high rate of divorce amongst gay marriages a reason to disallow it?

[QUOTE]The state of sex in society as a whole is heading towards a deplorable state.[/QUOTE]
Uh, sure. I personally think the advent of contraception, abortion, and more a socially liberal populace are a great thing.

[QUOTE]Business partners can be "emotionally involved" just as much as any other couple, not including the sex. But to include sex, that is what is important in the social contract of marriage. That is the key defining factor between marriage and any business proposition. The foundations for this sex, those are really where problems lie.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Gays, too, can (and do) have sex.

[QUOTE]Back in my first post, when I reasoned about the nature of sexual attractions and perception, I came to a conclusion about this nature. This lead me to a conclusion about the nature of a particular example (homosexuality) in the very large list of sexual preferences and desires. [/QUOTE]
Homosexuality and bizarre sexual fetishes are vastly different in that one is voluntary, the other is not.

[QUOTE]Really, the issue of lust was the starting point for which I launched my argument.[/QUOTE]
Funny you mention this -- [i]I'm a big fan of lust[/i]. I think it's great fun. It's only a problem when one acts on their lust in an illegal manner (rape).

[QUOTE]Anyway, in regards to gay sex, it is the number one way of transferring aids, according to avert.org upwards of 65% of aids is transferred through Males having Sex with Males (or MSM). This is due to incredibly high amount of promiscuosity prior to the marriage movement. The tearing of mucosa and infection rates is also increased for MSM relationships.[/QUOTE]
To be frank (and incredibly non-PC), with this information considered I'm surprised you don't support gay sex. My implications are terribly apparent.

But further, I don't see how the transmittance of STDs constitutes an "unhealthy society." Or at least it's not sufficient to forbid gay marriage. If you're serious about maintaining a "healthy society," you should support a ban on gay sex. Then, and only then, would the problem of STDs be addressed... until then, you might actually be perpetuating the problem. Promiscuousness would be reinforced by the inability for a gay couple to marry up.

[QUOTE]BTW, I always hate it when someone generalizes my position into one similar to discrimination against inter-racial marriages. There is a vast difference between inter-racial marriages, and same-sex marriages.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but also understand it's the exact same logic that was employed to forbid interracial marriage. People fought long and hard against it, but eventually it happened (thanks to [i]progress[/i]ives). And society didn't fall apart. I have a sneaking suspicion gay marriage will enjoy a similar dynamic.[/font]

[Claire]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I know. The marriage issue is really tertiary to the sex issue. BTW, I'm not assuming that a gay couple would cease having sex because they aren't married.[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]Then I don't understand your point. You say that homosexual sex is purely for lust, and that allowing gay marriage would promote this lust?

I disagree. Marriage is about more than sex/procreation. You may not see this, maybe because your view on the matter is highly scientific. But I feel that the reason so many people get married to divorce later is that they find the notion of a happily ever after hard to resist; this happy ending being comprised of spending one's life with their "soul mate," for many reasons other than being able to have sex with them.[/FONT]


[quote name='Crimson Spider']Your anecdote really doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say here?[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]Support for my argument that not everyone is in it for the sex. I really don't think I'm the only one in the world.[/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Right. Not everyone is a lustful maniac. I am acknowledging that they are human beings that maniacally lust just like every other sexual preference.[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]Someone mentioned this before: if we're going to assume that marriage between two unable to procreate is based completely on lust, then shouldn't we outlaw marriage between a man and a woman if one/both are infertile? [/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I can. I've met plenty of couples that "want children" before they want to "Hit that nasty style". The activity-focused side is more character of the male behavior than of the female behavior, but neither is completely isolated.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Arial"]This relays back to my point that not every marriage is about sex for any reason, as well as my own anecdote. I do not want kids. I have no interest in sexual activities. But I do want to find someone to spend my life with, for better or for worse, etc. etc., and I feel that if I should someday decide that I do want to marry this person, regardless of their gender, I should have this right.[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Hoover Dam! This thread blew up!!! Before I get back to debating with you totally awesome debators(yes, thank you for being reasonable and being a good debator)(and debator is a word.......I think)
Where are we? It seems as if we were talking about the Bible and what is says about homosexuality and then I went to bed and I woke up to see um....................just tell me where we are, please?:confused:[/COLOR]

[Claire]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Hoover Dam! This thread blew up!!! Before I get back to debating with you totally awesome debators(yes, thank you for being reasonable and being a good debator)(and debator is a word.......I think)
Where are we? It seems as if we were talking about the Bible and what is says about homosexuality and then I went to bed and I woke up to see um....................just tell me where we are, please?:confused:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Arial"]Right now the two sides are:

1) As homosexuals cannot procreate, sex is done purely out of lust, and gay marriage would be promoting lust.

At least, that's what I'm getting from the argument. I may be misunderstanding. The other side remains to be that there is no reason for gay marriage to be illegal still, though that side of the debate is developing smaller arguments against the first side.[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Right now the two sides are:

1) As homosexuals cannot procreate, sex is done purely out of lust, and gay marriage would be promoting lust.

At least, that's what I'm getting from the argument. I may be misunderstanding. The other side remains to be that there is no reason for gay marriage to be illegal still, though that side of the debate is developing smaller arguments against the first side.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

You lost me.:animeswea

[COLOR="Sienna"]If I understand right, I would post my opinion.

Sex is not done purely out of lust. It is also to procreate and celebrate marriage. =D
As for gay marriage promoting lust. Confusion. Whoever said that, tell me what you mean, please.:confused: I cannot comment on that part unless I know the meaning.:catgirl: Btw, how'd you like my "Don't Worry, be Happy" video?[/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Right now the two sides are:

1) As homosexuals cannot procreate, sex is done purely out of lust, and gay marriage would be promoting lust.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]Hey as long as you practice safe sex I'm all for promoting lust.

Here's the deal: Homosexuality is going to happen whether you like it or not. Some people just experiment and move on. Others decide it's for them and logic and procreation be dammed. I say live and let live.

Yes not my most thought out reply, but maybe one of my best.[/color]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Here's the deal: Homosexuality is going to happen whether you like it or not. Some people just experiment and move on. Others decide it's for them and logic and procreation be dammed. I say live and let live.

Yes not my most thought out reply, but maybe one of my best.[/color][/QUOTE]

I still accept that that's the way some people are born. We don't know everything about genetics yet, although we know quite a lot. There is a possibility that something happens in the genetics and they are born with same-sex attraction.

I think we're also skirting the issue in this thread that there is more than just "straight" and "gay". There's bisexual, transsexual, and other ones I can't think of the names off the top of my head. Humanity is so diverse, it refuses to conform to this need to compartmentalize and strictly classify things as one way or another,

[Room Service]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]I'd love to open with a quote from some obscure philosopher or some Lou-Reed-esque figurehead of the indie culture. You know, something to get all the pseudo intellectuals in the room wet. But none of them could ever sum up my thoughts as succinctly as this:

"I think an orgasm is your thing, and you should **** whoever the **** you feel like ****ing. Whoever makes you come the hardest. Anybody who says you shouldn't, **** them."

-Eddie Murphy.

I'm sorry to jump in like this, but I feel this whole debate is [I]re-****ing-diculous[/I]. The whole thing is based on pre-concieved notions of normality, the sense of what is 'right' instilled in us by the culture that raises us. That means that it's all just silly human stupidity. Love is love. Gay or straight, bi, curious, whatever troubles your tribbles, it's all the same.

Sex? What is sex but the physical act of love? If you tell me I can't love someone because we've got matching parts, well, kindly jog the **** on. The mind reels at the kind of busy-bodied, self-righteous toff who acts like somebody elses love is their business.

Ugh. Like I said, sorry to kind of interrupt the flow of this thread, but it's easier than reading the whole thing before contributing anything. Jesus, come on, would [I]you[/I] want to sift through this thing at 4 in the morning? But I must say, this whole debate is rediculous. The only way to win this arguement is to prove your own moral superiority, but in order to do that, you have to invalidate people's right to privacy and personal happiness, something which would automatically defeat any sense of moral high-horseitry you could muster.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Something I have noticed is that a lot of people use the term "Gay Marriage". The marriage debate, though almost completely inspired solely by homosexuals, is *neutral* to the sexuality of the participants.

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Because mainstream scientific research has generally concluded that being gay [i]is not a choice[/i], I think this is a problematic point you make. If sexual orientation is not a choice, it is impossible to influence it via cultural dynamics, therefore the new prevalence of homosexuality is not due to societal moral decay or anything equally ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the percentage of gays in any society remains roughly constant at any point of time, in any society. Therefore this new prevalence of homosexuality is simply because more people are feeling comfortable about being themselves, rather than putting on a charade of heterosexuality.[/quote][/font]

Though most scientists do favor the idea that homosexuality isn't a "choice" in a certain sense, there is quite a bit that limits any scientist from declaring it so. Though, that is the consensus I am trying to break. Scientists are all willing to admit that sexual appeal manifests itself arbitrarily or in a clinically degenerate mode in hair, eyes, teeth, arms, legs, breasts, butts, cars, beaches, fireplaces, leather, spandex, food, horses, skin color, nationality, animation, practice, suffocation, dominance and submission, pain, objects, danger, altitude, amputation, number of participants, and social status in varying degrees, but when it is about liking a similar gender all of a sudden your entire perception system is irrelevant, and you no longer have a choice in the matter? What of the various degrees of solidarity towards these sexual preferences? You can create a 9-step scale between absolute homosexuality and absolute heterosexuality. Is there an involuntary cause for each one of the steps there as well?

Anyway I digress: If homosexuality isn't a choice, then that makes it something else: A sickness. A disability, a cripple, a defect, and all manners of negatively attached connotations. If it is indeed not a choice, scientists should dedicate themselves to finding a cure, or a way to resolve the issue so no person should ever live under the cruel lash of fate again. Who are we to take something with obvious negative side effects that "No one desires" (a statement I do not agree with), and then glorify it to be something great? If anything, same-sex marriages should be re-defined to be disability benefits, instead of changing the objective definition of marriage. Even then, this misses out on practicality, since you can obtain all of the benefits without marriage through alternate means (living wills, for instance). Though, that isn't why your average man supports the movement.

You know, I have heard that "average amount" statistic stated many times. Though it really doesn't make any conclusions on its own, I am wondering where it comes from. Anyway, homosexuality in society has become more popular thanks to another culture that embraces freedom, particularly in sexual aspects.



[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]These links, while interesting, left me with a few questions. First, what does gay marriage have to do with heterosexual marriage, and how would the implementation of the former impact the latter? Second, how is the rate of [i]births[/i] at all related to [i]gay[/i] marriage? It seems counterintuitive. Third, how is a high rate of divorce amongst gay marriages a reason to disallow it?[/quote][/font]

Same-sex marriage is a re-definition of heterosexual marriage to have a wider acceptance of gender and culture. Same-sex marriages would particularly change the definition of marriage to cease being about the function of biology, but rather the romantic connotation applied. This paves the way for further disregard for function and toward personal fulfillment. This also leads to a larger number of relationships that ultimately lead to divorce through the incompatibility of the participants. And divorces negatively affect everyone: [url]http://www.dadsnow.org/studies/heritage1.htm[/url] provides a nice cited article about the issues regarding divorce. Same-sex marriage legalization has also been linked to a decrease in marriages overall.

The Rate of Births? I do not believe that was a subject. The subject was the rate of out-of-wedlock births, which is really what was important. For the relationship to same-sex marriages, it isn't a direct effect of same-sex marriage, but the effect of the culture shift that allows same-sex marriage. In the nations such as Denmark and Sweden, the practice of marriage (and thus, the solidarity/fidelity of relationships) is at a point where couples disregard marriage completely for more domestic relationships, causing a lot more children to be born out of wedlock.

Anyway, I believe I already indirectly answered the third question in the first question, but I'll elaborate again. Simply put: divorce negatively affects everyone. With the high rate of promiscuity in homosexual couples, and the cultural push towards the same-sex marriages reflecting a recent "fad" more than the original status of homosexuality, the reasons for legalizing reflect this "fad" notion, and have been practiced to not have the best outcomes.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Uh, sure. I personally think the advent of contraception, abortion, and more a socially liberal populace are a great thing.[/quote][/font]

... is this sarcasm? Just making sure.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Homosexuality and bizarre sexual fetishes are vastly different in that one is voluntary, the other is not.[/quote][/font]

The big question here is why (if the given condition is true. I don't think it is). If you find someone who has a fetish for horses, they do not actively choose their behaviors. They are turned on by horses and horse-like activities, even when passing them passively. A fetish is very much a way of life, which I will outline further down when I get to it.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Funny you mention this -- [i]I'm a big fan of lust[/i]. I think it's great fun. It's only a problem when one acts on their lust in an illegal manner (rape).[/quote][/font]

This is something that (sarcasm?) I also outlined against in my first post. The main issue with lust is that the manner in which someone is de-personalized to satisfy one's own vanity, which breeds other problems, like lack of interpersonal relationship between other people, a degradation of the value of sex to individuals (growing tolerance to vasopressin?), and the pressure which causes women to conform to desires in order to gain social acceptance. This is assuming that the actions of lust have no other consequences (like child support payments) than the ones that are required to fulfill the condition of lust.


[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]To be frank (and incredibly non-PC), with this information considered I'm surprised you don't support gay sex. My implications are terribly apparent.

But further, I don't see how the transmittance of STDs constitutes an "unhealthy society." Or at least it's not sufficient to forbid gay marriage. If you're serious about maintaining a "healthy society," you should support a ban on gay sex. Then, and only then, would the problem of STDs be addressed... until then, you might actually be perpetuating the problem. Promiscuousness would be reinforced by the inability for a gay couple to marry up.[/quote][/font]

The statistics relating aids transference is in relation to the nature of homosexuality. Not towards same-sex marriage directly. Anyway, same-sex marriages have utterly failed to stop the promiscuous side of homosexuality, and have also failed to stop the transference of STDs. A married same-sex couple is more likely to practice intercourse without protection and engage in dangerous practices, and this has actually lead to an increase in STD transference.

Now, the solution lies greatly in cultural reformation instead of mandates, because people are more than willing to break laws regarding sex. Prostitution and human trafficking, though still illegal and discouraged, propagate themselves in society regardless of the laws enforcing them.

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Yes, but also understand it's the exact same logic that was employed to forbid interracial marriage. People fought long and hard against it, but eventually it happened (thanks to [i]progress[/i]ives). And society didn't fall apart. I have a sneaking suspicion gay marriage will enjoy a similar dynamic.[/font][/QUOTE]

Though my arguments sound similar, the same logic wasn't applied. The logic behind inter-racial marriages were more about children facing discrimination and the blending of cultures, which are both arguments that I have refused to use regarding same-sex, mainly for their invalidity. It is like manifest destiny to say that same-sex couples shouldn't get married because their children will be discriminated against.



And now on to Clurr



[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Then I don't understand your point. You say that homosexual sex is purely for lust, and that allowing gay marriage would promote this lust?

I disagree. Marriage is about more than sex/procreation. You may not see this, maybe because your view on the matter is highly scientific. But I feel that the reason so many people get married to divorce later is that they find the notion of a happily ever after hard to resist; this happy ending being comprised of spending one's life with their "soul mate," for many reasons other than being able to have sex with them.[/FONT][/quote]

Marriage is [i]ordered towards[/i] procreation. Anyway, you are correct that someone will get married and divorced due to that "happily ever after" aspect. Marriage is being treated like a fairytale in these instances, which isn't what marriage is like at all. Anyway, the idea of spending one's life with another person that you are naturally compatible with is a preferable outcome in life, regardless of sex or procreation. But, that isn't the entirety of marriage. You can vow to go into business with a good friend of yours for the rest of your life as well. That is a social contract that, though having similar ends, is not marriage.

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Support for my argument that not everyone is in it for the sex. I really don't think I'm the only one in the world.[/FONT][/quote]

Thankfully, you aren't the only one in the world. Seems that way, though. Anyway, I would like to bring up something that I mentioned very early on: If someone is not in the relationship for sex, then sex doesn't have to be a requirement. This is the same instance in which homosexuals will practice perfectly legal marriages.


[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Someone mentioned this before: if we're going to assume that marriage between two unable to procreate is based completely on lust, then shouldn't we outlaw marriage between a man and a woman if one/both are infertile? [/FONT][/quote]

Depends. If the given condition of the marriage is "Hey, lets get married, so I can have sex with you as much as I want without using protection because you can't get pregnant", then I do not encourage this marriage. The inability to procreate between a different sex couple, unless it was a given factor like I mentioned above, does not change the nature of the relationship they had. It is, and still remains, ordered toward procreation.

The difficulty in allowing same-sex marriages are the conditions in which homosexual relationships occur. Homosexuality is pre-defined as state where the sexual preferences/orientation of an individual is directed at the same sex. With this [i]must[/i] come a level of perceptual association of sex/sexual aspects associated with the characteristics of a member of the same gender. This causes an immediate problem: preferences are pre-defined toward objective and arbitrary ideals.

I never did consider the compatibility, friendliness, comfort, or personal attachment to be the grounds for a sexual relationship. Sure, they do make it easier to fulfill the existential satisfying aspect of a sexual relationship, but they are not grounds enough on their own to create a sexual relationship. That is a tertiary aspect that must be brought in on the will of the participants. When you have different sex couples, the bringing in of sex into a relationship means different things (sometimes. The negative aspects of homosexuality are far from exclusive to it) than it would for a same-sex couple. Marriage is, and preferably so, seating its roots of fidelity toward the procreative aspect, and existence as a member of a family. But, same-sex marriages are seating their roots of fidelity toward deeper emotional connection and passionate fulfillment by fidelity. It is just not the same.


[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]This relays back to my point that not every marriage is about sex for any reason, as well as my own anecdote. I do not want kids. I have no interest in sexual activities. But I do want to find someone to spend my life with, for better or for worse, etc. etc., and I feel that if I should someday decide that I do want to marry this person, regardless of their gender, I should have this right.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Though I do raise one question: Why "marriage"? Why not just become business partners, room mates, neighbors, best friends through thick and thin if sex is not involved?



[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Hey as long as you practice safe sex I'm all for promoting lust.

Here's the deal: Homosexuality is going to happen whether you like it or not. Some people just experiment and move on. Others decide it's for them and logic and procreation be dammed. I say live and let live.

Yes not my most thought out reply, but maybe one of my best.[/color][/QUOTE]

I suppose this is where you and I differ fundamentally. I say:

[indent]"When my sons come of age, gentlemen, punish them by harassing them in the very same way that I harassed you, if they seem to you to take care of wealth or anything before virtue, if they think they're someone when they're no one. Reproach them, just as I reproached you: tell them that they don't care for the things they should, and think they're someone when when they're worth nothing", [/indent]

quoting Plato's [u]The Apology of Socrates[/u]. Socrates said this to the jurors who convicted him of death, telling them to continually question and argue their stances.


I'll get to my personal analysis and history on sexual attraction later. Right now, I want to rest a bit.

EDIT: When I say "a bit". I mean, like, 15 hours. I am no longer having insomnia troubles, and I want to sleep.