Gay Marriages

[Anonymouse]

I thought I addressed what you brought up, you asked if contraception, anal sex, etc., are wrong and I answered, as well the difference of making love between man and woman, and that between same sex. I have no qualms about the way I answered them. If people cannot fathom my answer that is entirely another non issue and I do not expect anyone to agree, nor do I expect them to like it, but I did want to clear the record on my position, that was all. In fact, I expect to get chided for arguing such out of date arguments based on religion and morality. Who does that nowadays? Only religious fanatics who have "narrow minded views", like myself.

[loseyourname]

Well, yeah, you clarified that you are consistent in condemning all hedonistic acts, including any sex that isn't meant to impregnate. But I don't think your actions are consistent with your ethics. I know you engage in meaningless sex with women you could care less about, and I know you drink alcohol and smoke marijuana. These are all hedonistic acts that could potentially undermine a family.

[Anonymouse]

Well, yeah, you clarified that you are consistent in condemning all hedonistic acts, including any sex that isn't meant to impregnate. But I don't think your actions are consistent with your ethics. I know you engage in meaningless sex with women you could care less about, and I know you drink alcohol and smoke marijuana. These are all hedonistic acts that could potentially undermine a family.

Precisely, and I am wrong. I have engaged in alot of meaningless sex and meaningless things. Do you not think that I have lessened that the more conscious I became of my faith in God? But then when we do form a family, we knowingly go into it with the idea that we have to extremely curb our passions and instincts and our constant selfishness, because, as we all know, what the family means is love and selflness, living for someone and something other than your self-gratification.

[Deviance]

What about those who are infertile? Does that mean that it's immoral for them to get married?

Those that are the way you described earlier are impotent. They lack in the ability to produce. Again that is a DIFFERENT thing. There is a major difference between owning a car and not driving it and not driving a car because you do not own it.

[Deviance]

How valiant, noble, and virtuous of you to state you disagree with selfishness now, but before you were giving a harangue of how its all selfishness, all narcissism, all ego, etc., etc. Homosexuality is not right or moral, just because it exists, no more than murder or rape or pedophilia is right just because it exists. With that said, abortion is wrong, so is anal sex, so is the pill. If we want to get down to the nitty gritty people forget that morality is not about how man acts now, or what you can see him doing now( as relativists will bring up examples to argue for relativism ), but rather how man ought to act. Homosexuality serves no purpose. Now you may have trouble digesting this, but "sex", as defined between a man and woman, and why we have marriage and family, virginity, etc., was all meant to convey the spiritual nature of "making love", since we are spiritual beings, not material animals slaves to impulses from without.

Homosexuality, while occuring in nature, is not correct, and people who make comparisons between animals and humans, ignore one crucial point, man's innate sense of morality. The purpose of morality is human virtue, and not instinctive, like in animals. And morality is developed by moral effort, not subordination to animal and instinctive impulses. That love is spiritual between man and a woman, is not pliable or "relative". Love, in the spiritual sense, that embodies man and woman, family, selflessness, is the greatest thing that exists and only exists between man and woman. It is reflects the highest and noblest peak of spiritual and moral sense, reflects the "moral law within" as Kant exclaimed, the moral law written in nature and in harmony with reason.

Of course omosexuality rejects that moral sense because like all selfish and perverse acts, it surrenders to instinct and impulses from without. It admires "self" ( what you like to do ironically ), just like Narcissus falling in love with his reflection in the water. It's about Gay Pride and roaming on the streets flaunting naked bodies and muscle like they do every year in L.A. or San Fransisco and we get to see it as "news" on the media and in Hollywood shows and movies. It denies social purpose and consequently also denies moral and spiritual sense in marriage and family. By insisting on teaching kids "tolerance" for behavior that is incorrect, and by demanding protection from the State for its perverse sexual activity, it perverts society. If everyone were to give in in to such impulses, society would not continue, and therein lies the wrongness of its acts.

But then you have to ask an even higher question, why is there relativism? Why do some people push for making all things relative ( which itself is a contradiction )? Why would someone want to deny objective truth? Who's afraid? It was never logical, or mathematical truths that threatened the person who often argues for moral relativism or subjective truths. What scared them are moral truths. If there were permanent moral truths, that would mean that morality is not about subjective and vague things called "values" but about hard, unyielding things called "laws". And their fear of objective moral truths is amazingly selective. It almost always comes down and hovers on to just one arena, that of sex. And if Dostoevsky is right, morality without religion is impossible. For there is no morality without real moral laws, binding duties, objective obligations. A morality of mere convention, "man made" or "socially constructed" as relativists like to argue, and thus can be made elastic, is not morality at all, only mores. When that sense of spiritual duty and morality fade, we naturally revere our animal and material passions. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "Man cannot live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joy necessarily turns to carnal pleasures." When one no longer believes in God, one must necessarily start to worship idols of the material world, for we as humans are innately worshippers. And so here we are, discussing about exactly this.

That is because he is prone to contradictory. See, when homosexuals engage in mindless and meaningless fornication they do it the same way and proceed with the same process as anyone else (gay or straight): genitals caressing genitals. No one disagreed with that. I am just saying the overall meaning is immoral because it is overly self-gratifying thereby making it hedonistical and at the same time an act that means nil. In much bolder terms: a xxxx on xxxx interraction (especially during marriage) can never really produce an offspring. Therefore it does not work and it is simply centered upon MOSTLY self-satisfaction only. Loser does not look like he can stomach that LOL and by the looks of things he is misconstruing words around to twist and look for ways to just oppose them. That also does not work.

[Anonymouse]

You did not need to get extremely technical. I still don't have the right to tell anyone what to do in their privacy, nor should marriage be a State function. In that sense I do not disagree with loser, but my only point was to show the wrongness of the act.

[Deviance]

Well if you put it that way then the issue is once again neutral with no purpose for discussion: "Who is to say what is wrong or right?" "How do we know what we really know?"

I believe that biologically homosexuality does not work. You or anyone else can disagree with that but if we are arguing here on the basis of fairness and logic then homosexuality being "proper" does not fit into that realm of appropriateness. Let us stick to the more relevantly purpose of it. Let us debate this without regressing to middle school/ high school type insults.

Most of loser's and everyone else standing for homosexuality is really asserting points beyond the premises of this discussion. I mean, yes they are good points but that is not the case here. The fact that there are relatively few homosexuals (statistically because that is all we can go by since that is all we know and can have a somewhat valid enough census) answers a common type of objection to many people's tendencies that stand for homosexuality.

Just observe: http://www.sexualhealth.com/content/...%20Orientation

Bisexuals as well are confused people who can also copulate with the rest of the bunch. Let us not forget that overall, homosexuality isn't just a political and moral issue anymore; it is also about genetically altered people who are badly hurting psychologically and can go one way but they chose the other route due to the mental defect.

As for the marriage, two aspects to marriage lay: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention. It is not like being "best friends" with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection of children and etc. through wedlock.

Now, since homosexual couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not NEED this legal protection or the benefits of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really "best friend" or concubine status, and that does not require legal protection either.

[Deviance]

WHAT?! Oh that cannot be. You asked who is to say hedonism is wrong? Gladly, you had posted that people always knew they were homosexual. I guess beastiality is appropriate as well. That means if a woman feels she was always meant to have sex with a animal, then it is safe to say it was perfectly normal, she couldnt help it.

[dusken]

You cannot prove consent with regards to bestiality. But if you want to phuck furniture, be my guest.

[Darorinag]

Those that are the way you described earlier are impotent. They lack in the ability to produce. Again that is a DIFFERENT thing. There is a major difference between owning a car and not driving it and not driving a car because you do not own it.

Actually, you're wrong. There are women who do have their monthly cycle yet cannot reproduce.