Gay Marriages

[Deviance]

If you were to ding into the "grey areas" sham, none of this stuff really works at all. Let me explain: by asserting "grey" areas we simply render everything of its actual meaning and purpose to the point where it is obsolete. When that is done, all that does really is thwart one from seeing what is actually "right" or "wrong" and that creates this large vast amount of "grey" space that confusingly enough lacks a right and wrong. The problem with that is if one does not know what is "wrong" how will one later know what is "right?" You know what else? It is probably "grey" today but black or white tomorrow.

[Darorinag]

That is because they CHOSE not to have kids. The reason why it fails to work with homosexuals is because they cannot actually (naturally) produce a child. It is impossible for them.

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

[Sip]

How about a man and a woman that get married but only have sex with the woman using a strap-on on the guy?

[sSsflamesSs]

How about a man and a woman that get married but only have sex with the woman using a strap-on on the guy?

Then the guy is in serious denial, and the woman...well, I'll just leave it at that.

[loseyourname]

You are implying moral relativism, that there are no correct and incorrect views, and it's "all relative". Again, ideas that are correct are correct because they work. Your desperate attempt at trying to bring alcohol to somehow make a case for homosexuality is silly and I find it funny. Why murder is wrong is because it is incorrect, it doesn't work, and why socialism failed is because it is wrong, it doesn't work, why homosexuality is incorrect, is because it is wrong, it doesn't work. This is what I meant earlier that atheism and agnosticism promote this sort of relativism and if this paradigm is allowed to continue it has severe consequences.

I didn't imply relativism. I just took your view to its logical end. All acts that serve no purpose other than self-gratification and hedonism are immoral - absolutely, not relatively, immoral. Is that not why you said homosexuality is immoral? Homosexuality works perfectly fine; it just doesn't produce any children. The point of loving someone is not to produce children, it is to love that person. My guess is that you probably use some form of contraception when you have sex. According to your logic, you would have to consider that immoral because you can't produce any children that way. You are engaging in the act simply for self-gratification and hedonism. Again, is this not why you said homosexuality was immoral? Heck, let me just quote you to save you the time it would take for you to think about it.

How is it incorrect? It serves no purpose other than perversion and self-gratification and hedonism.

[Anonymouse]

I didn't imply relativism. I just took your view to its logical end. All acts that serve no purpose other than self-gratification and hedonism are immoral - absolutely, not relatively, immoral. Is that not why you said homosexuality is immoral? Homosexuality works perfectly fine; it just doesn't produce any children. The point of loving someone is not to produce children, it is to love that person. My guess is that you probably use some form of contraception when you have sex. According to your logic, you would have to consider that immoral because you can't produce any children that way. You are engaging in the act simply for self-gratification and hedonism. Again, is this not why you said homosexuality was immoral? Heck, let me just quote you to save you the time it would take for you to think about it.

You did nto take my view to its logical end, instead you took my view and warped it. All acts that are not correct, do not work. This is why there are correct and incorrect ideas, otherwise we would never be able to draw a line of what is wrong or right. Just because people are homosexuals does not mean that that behavior is correct or moral. Just because people are murderers does not mean it is correct or moral. Homosexual marriage makes no sense, because marriage, in one form or another, in all societies has been an institution between man and woman, to provide a moral and biological environment for the basic unit of civilization - the family, to make sure children are protected and nurtured. The family is what distinguishes man from animal in social culture. Animals, like human beings, have sexual and parental instincts. It is only when these instincts transcend their purely biological function into a permanent social relationship that we speak of marriage and this can only occur among human beings. The idea that huamns can be free from restraints is Marxist-feminist-relativist social idiocy at its apogee. Even the Greeks who were liberal about homosexuality, considered it to be something men do until marriage, that means, a man was supposed to eventually get married to a woman. Of course I do not expect homosexuals, nor you, to understand this, because relativism, is based on hedonism and selfishness, whereas the family is about selflessness. To demand all these sorts rights for this or that purpose, to suit your self-gratification to get "benefits" is pointless because marriage has never been about selfish reasons, the reasons homosexuals want it. To redefine marriage is to argue for relativism which you are doing. One can not change the definition of marriage and still call it marriage, no more than one can change the definition of a yardstick and still use it as a reliable source of measurement.

[Anonymouse]

And yes loser, selfishness is wrong, it is addressed by all major religions and philosophies, yet we engage it. Once again, just because we engage in it, does not mean it is right. It is not about how we act, it is about how we ought to act.

[loseyourname]

When did I ever say selfishness is right? Seriously, I mean.

So let's actually analyze this issue, Mousy. You're still not addressing the objections I've raised. You're restating your case, but I already know your case. You've given two reasons so far as to why homosexuality is wrong. I'll take a look at both in depth.

Reason #1: It doesn't work.

Rebuttal: First off, this is pretty vague. Clarify what you mean by "doesn't work." You've talked about it undermining family structure and sure, I can accept that. But that only addressed the issue of homosexuals having children; it doesn't homosexuality itself. That is what I'm interested in here. I agree that homosexuals should not have children, so you have no argument with me there. The issue of marriage - well, I think we kind of agree with that as well. I don't think there should be any such thing as state marriages; it was originally a religious institution, and it should be kept privatized, and as private entities, a church can marry whoever it pleases and can exclude anyone it pleases. Again, I don't care about that. I want to know why you think homosexuality itself is wrong.

Are you arguing that homosexual sex is wrong because it doesn't serve the biological function of sex? Is that what you mean by "doesn't work?" If that is the case, then again, you must consider oral, anal, and even protected sex or sex with a girl who is on the pill immoral, and I doubt that you do.

Reason #2: It only serves the purposes of self-gratification and hedonism.

Rebuttal: Clearly this is bunk. For one thing, good sex should serve to gratify both parties, and homosexual sex is no different. If it done properly, it is about pleasing the other person as much as it is about pleasing oneself. Furthermore, why should a hedonistic act be considered immoral? I agree that hedonism as a way of life is not the way to go, but we're not talking about that. We're talking a single hedonistic act, and again, any sexual act that is not done with the express purpose of creating another human being is done hedonistically and clearly you do not find these immoral. Nor do you find the drinking of alcohol or the smoking of marijuana, or even masturbation, to be immoral, despite the fact that they are all hedonistic acts.

Now it would be appreciated if you would actually address these points, in a genuinely thoughtful manner. I think I've done that much for you. I've taken your arguments seriously, and I've analyzed them seriously, point by point. If you really want to take place in an honest discussion, and not simply a rhetorical showcase, you will do the same. Don't lower yourself to the level of Nimrod.

[Anonymouse]

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.

[loseyourname]

Well, if you think contraception is immoral, so be it. At least you're consistent, although somehow I doubt that your intention is to impregnate all the women that you have sex with. We'll just have to politely disagree about this. You still didn't address my objections, but whatever.