Gay Marriages

[loseyourname]

I was observing this issue from a non-secular view. I mean again, you can tamper with it if you want but no where is it my job to explain his own hatred for whatever. Hatred is different from discussion and backing up your points you make.

What are you talking about? Who's hatred? I only asked you to explain exactly why you are condemning homosexuality as immoral, because whenever you give one criterion on which you do, you won't apply that same criterion to any other action.

[Deviance]

I can see an objection if a homosexual couple wants to adopt a child, because then it does interfere with another life. But Jesus Christ, if two people love each other and they aren't hurting anyone, on what basis can you possibly say what they do with each other, under full consent of the other, is immoral? This argument that lack of functionality equates with immorality just doesn't make any sense, especially when Deviance refuses to apply the same standard to any action other than homosexual sex. Why the discrimination? Why should a hedonistic act be immoral? I mean jeez guys, were you raised as Puritans? Do you think masturbation is immoral? The only purpose that serves is self-gratification and hedonism.

Hell, you still haven't shown that homosexuality is innately hedonistic or self-serving. Is not the point of loving someone to serve that person? Why do you need children to validate the relationship? I fail to see how loving another human being, regardless of their gender, is self-gratifying and hedonistic.

What? And you think your generalization does make sense? All Puritans were "straight?" HAHAHA. That is as false as ever. See, this is what I meant, you go and stick with your fallacies for your own self-benefit and you refute all other options just because they limit your own hedonism or you are not the source of it. There is a limit and that sort of action exceeds beyond that limit. My rule applies generally and generically to ALL that is why I said it is "non-secular."

[Deviance]

What are you talking about? Who's hatred? I only asked you to explain exactly why you are condemning homosexuality as immoral, because whenever you give one criterion on which you do, you won't apply that same criterion to any other action.

Your request is a little close to the question "which came first the chicken or the egg?" I was talking about Glow's ridiculous accusation of me. He says that I HATE gays just because I am not or I do not consent to their choices they make. You again lack the ability to see that I and talk from a "non-secular" view here. I told you from the very start that it was general. IT seems to me like you are looking for a spot to discriminate one of the two groups: gay or straight. Nonetheless, I am not going to HATE anyone for being anything when ever.

[Deviance]

Look Deviance, you won't judge those who choose not to have children and you won't judge those who are infertile. There is no middle ground here. You either have to say that homosexuals choose not to have children or they are unable to do so. There is no third category to put them into. If you think there is, please explain what that category is.

Whoa, yes there is. It does not mean it is a "middle ground" it is simply a self-serving hedonistic act with other aspects of it that surround its futility. I HAVE TO? Haha no I do not because we are discussing both stances here. No one is jumping to any side. Sorry not "we" I AM. Plain and simple that is my thesis in the first sentence. You as well can look for a loophole if you wish but clearly the facts will show you otherwise.

[Crimson Glow]

And I tell you again, that is a matter of choice, not inability or some genetically altering biological flaw within the chromosomes. They CAN but they choose not to have it. That is a different thing that is simply decision based. Their FLAW and inability THWARTS them from doing as such (unless it is artificially). You are going in circles trying to find some loop hole that is why you are constantly at a loss of words and or a stance on things and to twist my words around towards your negative agenda of "hating" someone, well that just debunks your status and makes you appear doltish because no one said that they will "hate" anyone for being however they choose to be. You cannot automatically ASSume that just because I forbid it, it automatically means I "hate" them. It seems like you need to keep your plans to yourself because to say what you just said means to be inaccurate and your fallacy just helped you with that.

Man. This is why I give up on discussions on this forum. All you people do is brush off legitimate arguments/questions with extremely weak rebuttals, or lack understanding fundamental flaws in your arguments. Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it just blows my mind that you can't see the loop hole in your perception. I'm...."going around in circles"... because you're eluding my question. As Lose said, you’re setting a double standard/discriminating. Let me try to spell it out even clearer (as if it's possible to get any clearer):

You initially said that marriage should be an institution exclusively for raising a family, and that since gays can't raise a family (through natural means), that they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I pointed out the obvious flaw in your argument by asking what of people who choose not to.

You said that's ok because they chose not to, which is a ridiculous answer. Your answer was basically saying that "marriages is strictly for raising a family....EXCEPT when a heterosexual husband and wife CHOSES not to make a family...then that's OK". Your current position of marriages being strictly for raising children does not support "choice". Whether through genetic flaw, or choice, the point is they aren't having kids, and according to your stance, the only reason to get married is to have children. Therefore, they are still defying your stance, choice or not. Is this really so difficult to understand?

I had to ask the question again because you took the same stance, which DOES have a loop hole (which I pointed out).

Instead of taking this second opportunity to rephrase your stance, you restated the same phrase, even though I didn't just "try to find a loop hole". I did find a loop hole. Can you honestly not see your opinion is the blatant definition of a double standard?

Oh, and did I mention you or anyone else on this forum specifically about hating anybody? No. I said I was referring to the subject in general, not just on this forum (and I didn't even say this thread, I said this forum). It was a reflection on overall reaction to this issue. So who's the one ASSuming?

[loseyourname]

So what is the criteria by which you judge homosexuality immoral, and why do you not judge other actions that fit those same criteria in the same way?

I'm going to try to get you to actually clarify things here, though I doubt you will. First, you say that it is hedonistic and self-serving. Now are you saying that about homosexuality, or just about homosexual sex? Surely you can't think that a man who loves another man is being self-serving and hedonistic, because that is just not the nature of love. So I'm going to guess that you are only condemning the act of homosexual copulation on this criterion, although even that is debatable, as a large part of sex (good sex, anyway) is pleasing your partner. With this in mind now, how do you judge other hedonistic acts? Do you consider it immoral to buy an expensive Oriental rug? Is it immoral to eat too much ice cream? Surely these are self-serving acts that serve no purpose other than to please the person performing the action.

The second thing you put out is that the act is non-functional, given that the function of sex is to produce children. So do you agree with Anonymouse then that all sexual acts that are not intended to produce children are immoral? Is masturbation immoral? Oral sex? Sex with a condom or with a girl on the pill? If this is the case, all I can tell is that you hold a pretty extreme view, and yes, a Puritan view. However, this does not seem to be the case, since you have not condemned those who choose not to have children, or those who cannot have children. If you do not condemn them, why the inconsistency? What is the distincition you are drawing? Do you only condemn actions that are both non-functional and hedonistic?

I'm just trying to understand your view here, that is all. Anonymouse clarified his thinking pretty well. Hopefully you can do the same.

[Deviance]

Man. This is why I give up on discussions on this forum. All you people do is brush off legitimate arguments/questions with extremely weak rebuttals, or lack understanding fundamental flaws in your arguments. Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it just blows my mind that you can't see the loop hole in your perception. I'm...."going around in circles"... because you're eluding my question. As Lose said, you’re setting a double standard/discriminating. Let me try to spell it out even clearer (as if it's possible to get any clearer):

You initially said that marriage should be an institution exclusively for raising a family, and that since gays can't raise a family (through natural means), that they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I pointed out the obvious flaw in your argument by asking what of people who choose not to.

You said that's ok because they chose not to, which is a ridiculous answer. Your answer was basically saying that "marriages is strictly for raising a family....EXCEPT when a heterosexual husband and wife CHOSES not to make a family...then that's OK". Your current position of marriages being strictly for raising children does not support "choice". Whether through genetic flaw, or choice, the point is they aren't having kids, and according to your stance, the only reason to get married is to have children. Therefore, they are still defying your stance, choice or not. Is this really so difficult to understand?

I had to ask the question again because you took the same stance, which DOES have a loop hole (which I pointed out).

Instead of taking this second opportunity to rephrase your stance, you restated the same phrase, even though I didn't just "try to find a loop hole". I did find a loop hole. Can you honestly not see your opinion is the blatant definition of a double standard?

Oh, and did I mention you or anyone else on this forum specifically about hating anybody? No. I said I was referring to the subject in general, not just on this forum (and I didn't even say this thread, I said this forum). It was a reflection on overall reaction to this issue. So who's the one ASSuming?

What exactly are you trying to say? I did not set a double standard I just said basically just because I forbid homosexuality it does not mean I will flat out "hate" them. I am not discriminating anymore or much than you are by choosing their side. If that means setting a "double-standard" then that means all of us who choose "no middle ground" as you have persisted before, are being hypocrites. Close the thread.

[Deviance]

So what is the criteria by which you judge homosexuality immoral, and why do you not judge other actions that fit those same criteria in the same way?

I'm going to try to get you to actually clarify things here, though I doubt you will. First, you say that it is hedonistic and self-serving. Now are you saying that about homosexuality, or just about homosexual sex? Surely you can't think that a man who loves another man is being self-serving and hedonistic, because that is just not the nature of love. So I'm going to guess that you are only condemning the act of homosexual copulation on this criterion, although even that is debatable, as a large part of sex (good sex, anyway) is pleasing your partner. With this in mind now, how do you judge other hedonistic acts? Do you consider it immoral to buy an expensive Oriental rug? Is it immoral to eat too much ice cream? Surely these are self-serving acts that serve no purpose other than to please the person performing the action.

The second thing you put out is that the act is non-functional, given that the function of sex is to produce children. So do you agree with Anonymouse then that all sexual acts that are not intended to produce children are immoral? Is masturbation immoral? Oral sex? Sex with a condom or with a girl on the pill? If this is the case, all I can tell is that you hold a pretty extreme view, and yes, a Puritan view. However, this does not seem to be the case, since you have not condemned those who choose not to have children, or those who cannot have children. If you do not condemn them, why the inconsistency? What is the distincition you are drawing? Do you only condemn actions that are both non-functional and hedonistic?

I'm just trying to understand your view here, that is all. Anonymouse clarified his thinking pretty well. Hopefully you can do the same.

Adam are you honestly trying to test me? I just said I DO APPLY THEM TO ALL GAY OR STRAIGHT, however there are certain limits based upon the examples you gave. "A black person or handicapped." That is not a valid argument in this case. That is like me arguing to earn your position as a Moderator saying "but are we both not AC chatters? Big wow we have a different preference." Obviously, you will have your reasons to testify. This particular issue is not as subjective as you think. That is where I am getting at.

[loseyourname]

You're discriminating because you condemn homosexuals that do not raise families, but you will not condemn heterosexuals that do not raise families. Did you only read the last paragraph of his post? Did you honestly miss the half-page he devoted to explaining why it is that you are discriminating?

[Crimson Glow]

What exactly are you trying to say? I did not set a double standard I just said basically just because I forbid homosexuality it does not mean I will flat out "hate" them. I am not discriminating anymore or much than you are by choosing their side. If that means setting a "double-standard" then that means all of us who choose "no middle ground" as you have persisted before, are being hypocrites. Close the thread.

Uhhhh....what the hell are you talking about??? That had nothing to do with my last post.