Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[MidGe]

Dear Notable Twit,

[ QUOTE ]
Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not desirable, but surely not perverted or abnormal, and definitely not in the class of pedophilia or bestiality. It is the natural order of things as found in nature and as specified by the designer if that is your leaning. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for making my point. I'm trying to show that HIS comments are invalid. Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour. Get it?

???????????

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misrepresenting the direction of the argument. YOU were the first to use that line of reasoning in condemning gay marriage as somehow analogous to bestiality. Your plan was, I assume, to draw some connection to some shocking and 'obviously abhorrent' practice or something, and therefore attack gay marriage by association. Your analogy was terrible, and my little re-enactment was aimed at that.

But you are correct, if anyone was using the idea that societies in the past have condoned or accepted homosexual activity as some sort of proof that it is a moral practice, then they were wrong. However, if they were using that as support for the idea that homosexuality has a long history in humans and is also prevalent in nature, that is NOT the same false analogy that your were employing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Notable Twit,

[ QUOTE ]
Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not desirable, but surely not perverted or abnormal, and definitely not in the class of pedophilia or bestiality. It is the natural order of things as found in nature and as specified by the designer if that is your leaning. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I just read that specific quote. Phil, do you know what normal means? If all species do it, it IS normal. It may or may not be beneficial, but it is certainly normal.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil, do you know what normal means? If all species do it, it IS normal. It may or may not be beneficial, but it is certainly normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. Certain things that exist across all species are neither normal nor functional. An example is schizophrenia. Other mammals get it and it exists in every culture. Yet, most people would like to see a cure for this affliction even though it's "normal" by your definition.

Regarding my arguments - it's often stated by gays that "some members of all species exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore it must be normal and natural, and should be accepted as such". I'm simply saying that this idea is bankrupt, and the examples I gave show why.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Certain things that exist across all species are neither normal nor functional. An example is schizophrenia. Other mammals get it and it exists in every culture. Yet, most people would like to see a cure for this affliction even though it's "normal" by your definition.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes and so is pancreatic cancer and a huge list of other "ailments". Any reasons the "victims" (according to you) should be discriminated against economically or legally?

Your position doesn't stand up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phil, do you know what normal means? If all species do it, it IS normal. It may or may not be beneficial, but it is certainly normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. Certain things that exist across all species are neither normal nor functional. An example is schizophrenia. Other mammals get it and it exists in every culture. Yet, most people would like to see a cure for this affliction even though it's "normal" by your definition.

Regarding my arguments - it's often stated by gays that "some members of all species exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore it must be normal and natural, and should be accepted as such". I'm simply saying that this idea is bankrupt, and the examples I gave show why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you disagree that it is normal for some percentage of people, and as you say, other mammals, to be schizophrenic?

[Metric]

Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

The association with government sponsorship should be broken entirely. Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.

Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[Darryl_P]

I don't want to control my kids' minds or brainwash them. I just want to prevent others from doing it. They will grow up and make up their own minds eventually, so using force on them will only backfire anyway. There are some issues, like homosexuality, which are best left to a later age though IMO.

Quite frankly I don't trust a lot of teachers because they work hard for crappy pay, despite being well educated, so there has to be something in it for them. For some it's just a genuine desire to do good (those are the good teachers, hats off to them) but in a lot of cases (thinking back to my own schooling) that something is the ability to mould kids' minds in their own (sometimes warped and perverted) ways.

So rather than give them an issue which, bolstered by legal legitimacy, gives them free range to impart their subjective views on my kids, I'd rather the issue stay off the table in the school system and have them focus on the 3 Rs instead.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The only perversion is you calling it so. It is found in all cultures and in most species.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human species is different from other species on this planet. Humans can rationalize things. A reasonable gay human male knows that it is not normal for a human male to want to insert his penis into another human male's rectum. He knows, that despite his own desires, the normal receptical for a human male's penis is a human female's vagina.

Saying homosexuality is perfectly moral amoung humans because homosexuality is seen across many different animal species is ridiculous. In fact the whole arguement is degrading to gays as it lowers them to the level of the unrational animal. You should be ashamed of propagating it. Using your logic I could conclude its ok for you to eat your offspring because I saw my guppies eat their offsprings.

Stu

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

The association with government sponsorship should be broken entirely. Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.

Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[/ QUOTE ]
100% correct imo.

chez