Latest gay marriage flareup

[zasterguava]

I don't see any reason why someone would have objections to a gay couple getting married. However, I do think the church should announce that it will NEVER allow gay marriages in the church. Homosexuality is clearly denounced in the Bible e.g. "Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." (this is not open to intepretation IMO). I really think people should be true to themselves and not kid themselves that their almost 2000 year old man-made philosophy is accepting of gay relationships.

Banning gay marriage is unconstitional. Allowing gay marrigaes in churches is unChristian. Both should be treated accordingly.

[DannyOcean_]

i was considering getting married later in my life, but now marriage as a a whole is ruined and i'll never consider it. It's no longer pure or special, so i'm just never getting married now. Thanks Iowa, you ruined everyone else's marriages, and soon the entire world will be a giant sin-city.

[Phil153]

Deleted

[ QUOTE ]
Banning gay marriage is unconstitional

[/ QUOTE ]
Should Iron be allowed to marry his mother or sister? How about his dog? Why can't corporations marry, they're legal entities?

Whether the term marriage can even apply to a man and a man is open for debate IMO.

[zasterguava]

Are we allowed to call homosexuality a "perversion" here? I don't think people who hold opposite beliefs to myself (or society in general) should be censored but perhaps a little self-censorship could go a long way there Phil.

If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a perversion?

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether the term marriage can even apply to a man and a man is open for debate IMO.



[/ QUOTE ]

"the legal or religious union of two people," Canadian Oxford Dictionary

[Phil153]

I don't know what's allowed here, I'm usually debate this stuff in SMP. But I don't think you can have a proper debate without putting your cards on the table, and what I said is at the core of the debate IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a peversion?

[/ QUOTE ]
If society was composed entirely of consenting adults, then it would be a different matter. But there are many who believe that society shouldn't recognize abnormal acts as valid.

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions ...

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) is clearly NOT a perversion.

(2) is not a perversion, unless you also think that mankind for most of its history was mostly perverts, in which case the term no longer has the same meaning.

(3) is a misnomer as the sex isn't voluntary both ways.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what's allowed here, I'm usually debate this stuff in SMP. But I don't think you can have a proper debate without putting your cards on the table, and what I said is at the core of the debate IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a peversion?

[/ QUOTE ]
If society was composed entirely of consenting adults, then it would be a different matter. But there are many who believe that society shouldn't recognize abnormal acts as valid.

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your examples suck. I do not see the legal binding between the relationship of two consenting and loving adults as being a perversion or as being deprimental to society(in fact quite the opposite). Thus legal 'secular' marriage between 2 men/women is in my oppinion a non-issue.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Your examples suck. I do not see the legal binding between the relationship of two consenting and loving adults as being a perversion or as being deprimental to society(in fact quite the opposite).

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't, obviously. Others do. The examples (which you didn't answer) are relevant to what is and isn't a perversion/detrimental and how we decide it. I don't see how you can be against any of the things listed if you're for gay marriage. Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities. Many 15yos are as capable of giving consent as an 18yo "adult". Who are you to restrict their freedom? And prostitution is the very definition of a willing adult transaction.

@ mosdef:
[ QUOTE ]
I like the way you're using the word "discourage" instead of "forcably prevented against their will" to soften it.

[/ QUOTE ]
prevented? They can do whatever they like. It's up to society whether or not they recognize the union of man and man. No is being forcibly prevented from anything - in fact gays pushing marriage is an attempt to force social validity for their abnormal preferences, by hijacking a traditional means of recognizing the union of a man and woman.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

With humans? Do you have any evidence of this or are you pulling it out of your ass? And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?