Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[mattskramer]

But check me if I'm wrong here... Engaging in homosexual sex, is a violation of the laws of nature... Clearly this conclusion presently flies in the face of modern conventional wisdom; and this generally on the misnomer that 'it exists in nature…,' but the mere existence of a behavior, in no way demonstrates the natural lawfulness of such... Sexuality is a function of biology... the biological imperative which sustains the species; without regard to the species at issue.

Isn’t the attempt to fight the natural progression of cancer through artificial means a violation of the laws of nature? Isn’t the building of a dam a violation of the laws of nature? I grant you that some unnatural activities might be harmful, but it is a fallacy to conclude that all unnatural things are bad and that all natural things are good.

That which is natural is not necessarily right or good. That which is unnatural is not necessarily wrong or bad. It only tells you what is natural or unnatural.

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But check me if I'm wrong here... Engaging in homosexual sex, is a violation of the laws of nature... Clearly this conclusion presently flies in the face of modern conventional wisdom; and this generally on the misnomer that 'it exists in nature…,' but the mere existence of a behavior, in no way demonstrates the natural lawfulness of such... Sexuality is a function of biology... the biological imperative which sustains the species; without regard to the species at issue.

Isn’t the attempt to fight the natural progression of cancer through artificial means a violation of the laws of nature?

Well if it is, I'd love to hear the argument which sustains it...

Isn’t the building of a dam a violation of the laws of nature?

Is it? It's a utlization of the natural processes, to be sure... which is what the natural processes are designed to provide... But how it stands as a violation... is known only to you.

I grant you that some unnatural activities might be harmful,

that's mighty white of ya...

... but it is a fallacy to conclude that all unnatural things are bad and that all natural things are good.

I've made no such assumption... and there's nothing in my position which implies such.

That which is natural is not necessarily right or good.

Exactly... Homosexuality and the obsessive pursuit of hedonism are classic examples of 'natural, yet not good...'

That which is unnatural is not necessarily wrong or bad.

Agreed... but none of that excuses or otherwise establishes a sound basis for normalizing sexual deviancy...

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ROFL... If you're of the opinion that my argument falls within the scope of this concept, then you've either failed to read my argument or the sourced citation.

 

[Montrovant]

PI, I was wondering if you might provide the law of nature that homosexuality violates?

You seemed to be comparing homosexuality to trying to avoid gravity in one of your posts, which clearly doesn't make sense, so obviously I'm misreading you. Because of that, I ask that you make a clear statement of the law homosexuality violates so I might see how that analogy works and understand your argument better before I further attempt to agree or disagree with it.

Thanks!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, I was wondering if you might provide the law of nature that homosexuality violates?

Sure... it's the law which is established by the biological imperative... Ya see the design of species provides for a very specific means by which it is sustained... and homosexuality deviates from that design and competes with that design.

You seemed to be comparing homosexuality to trying to avoid gravity in one of your posts, which clearly doesn't make sense, so obviously I'm misreading you.

No, not really, I think you're reading it right.

Because of that, I ask that you make a clear statement of the law homosexuality violates so I might see how that analogy works and understand your argument better before I further attempt to agree or disagree with it. Thanks!

Fair enough Monty... and I appreciate your taking the time to inquire... I think that I've answered it, so go ahead and provide your contest wherever you're ready.

 

[mattskramer]

But check me if I'm wrong here... Engaging in homosexual sex, is a violation of the laws of nature... Clearly this conclusion presently flies in the face of modern conventional wisdom; and this generally on the misnomer that 'it exists in nature…,' but the mere existence of a behavior, in no way demonstrates the natural lawfulness of such... Sexuality is a function of biology... the biological imperative which sustains the species; without regard to the species at issue.

Well if it is, I'd love to hear the argument which sustains it...



Is it? It's a utlization of the natural processes, to be sure... which is what the natural processes are designed to provide... But how it stands as a violation... is known only to you.

that's mighty white of ya...



I've made no such assumption... and there's nothing in my position which implies such.

Exactly... Homosexuality and the obsessive pursuit of hedonism are classic examples of 'natural, yet not good...'

Agreed... but none of that excuses or otherwise establishes a sound basis for normalizing sexual deviancy...

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ROFL... If you're of the opinion that my argument falls within the scope of this concept, then you've either failed to read my argument or the sourced citation.

It seems clear to me that you were applying the natural law fallacy in the following 2 paragraphs:

Now you may not feel that this natural law is fair... but nature clearly disagrees... and what's more she has MANY such unwritten rules... most of which are covered in Western jurisprudence and many of which are presently being challenged on the same specious grounds over which you're trotting this argument.

If you break those rules or laws, then you are not always punished.

nature has forbidden

Wow. It sure seems to me as if you are saying that nature determines what is right or wrong. Nature does not forbid homosexual behavior but it does allow cancer to occur. People make choices. If people are not careful in the choices that they make, negative consequences may result. That is all that there is to it. If you have promiscuous sex, be careful. If you have cancer, I would not let nature take its course but use any means necessary – artificial synthetic chemicals, man-made machines, or anything else - to cure it. It is not natural for people to roll up paper cylinders, stuff them with dried leaves, light the leaves, and inhale the smoke. Anyway, here is a great link.

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world--and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well if it is, I'd love to hear the argument which sustains it...



Is it? It's a utlization of the natural processes, to be sure... which is what the natural processes are designed to provide... But how it stands as a violation... is known only to you.

that's mighty white of ya...



I've made no such assumption... and there's nothing in my position which implies such.

Exactly... Homosexuality and the obsessive pursuit of hedonism are classic examples of 'natural, yet not good...'

Agreed... but none of that excuses or otherwise establishes a sound basis for normalizing sexual deviancy...



ROFL... If you're of the opinion that my argument falls within the scope of this concept, then you've either failed to read my argument or the sourced citation.

It seems clear to me that you were applying the natural law fallacy in the following 2 paragraphs:



If you break those rules or laws, then you are not always punished.

No? Hmm... so you're saying that like every other law in existance, where MOST violations of the law go unpunished... but where the certainty of punishment rises with the frequency of such violations; meaning that MOSt of the time, someone can violate a law and by virture of the luck of the odds, that violation goes unnoticed, by virtue that the result of the violation did not rise to the level or result IN hitting the clinker... which ends one's ass in the clink...

For instance, today as I was driving down the road, I eased up beyond the 45mph speed limit... such did not result in serious ramification... but as I pulled onto the road I where the resturant I was wanting to eat lunch is located... I came upon a major accident... where some moron slammed into stopped traffic at a red light, flipping his PU over 6 cars, killing a 31 year old Mother and sending at least 5 people to the hospital, not including himself... all with life threatening, critical condition.

Multiple violations of the laws... and many punishments... but not all violations were punished...

nature has forbidden

Wow. It sure seems to me as if you are saying that nature determines what is right or wrong.

"right and wrong" are terms of relevance... Nature determines what is RIGHT and WRONG within the relevance of nature's design... Now you may have a greivance with Nature's design... Sadly, that is not my department... all I can say is that those with such a grievance, who've opted to reject nature's law as a result of that grievance, tend to be culled from the gene pool... so IF 'right' is a function of what serves the best means to sustain life... then reason suggests one go with the designer of that life.

Nature does not forbid homosexual behavior but it does allow cancer to occur.

Nature forbids homosexuality, IF one's goal is to live a normal, healthy life and procreate one's genetic lineage beyond one's self...

People make choices. If people are not careful in the choices that they make, negative consequences may result. That is all that there is to it.

Yep... that is all there is to it. Nature doesn't prevent you from making poor choices... but she is known to produce those consequences... despite you being a 'decent person, who likes animals and is kind to children, pays your taxes and bills' and so on... IF you choose to operate outside the biological design... odds are fairly good you'll slam head-long into those consequences sooner or later...

Now if Nature doesn't provide exceptions for 'special circumstances'... why would a culture be wise to do so? Given that the same consequences fall to cultures that make poor choices...

The appeal to normalcy is not fallacious, when the appeal not to the normalcy but to the biological imperative; the natural order established by the design... Thus the apeal is NOT to normalcy, per se, but to the design which establishes the basis of that which is normal... thus normalcy, is not the basis of the argument...

You're trying to prevent the recognition of normalcy, by erroneously declaring such to be fallacious... Normalcy is a fact; the biological imperative is a fact... and noting such does not convert those facts into something less than facts... that normalcy and or the biological imperative is "Right or Wrong," that it is good or evil... is irrelevant.

Because it is the way it is... and it's as simple as that. And where one chooses to BUCK that design, one chooses to pay the consequences which are dealt by a Nature which tends towards drawing hard lines...

My position is simply that it is beyond absurd to change a standard which serves to sustain nature's design and normalize behavior which set the culture up to suffer the consequences of the aforementioned hard line...

Beyond that Matt, I've also provided conclusive evidence, proving that the advocacy of sexual deviancy is not only NOT sustained through valid reasoning... but that the inherent advocacy of Homosexual marriage within that over-reaching lobby, has demonstrated through their actions on this thread that it is NOT a simple plea to tweak an overly restrictive standard, which they will then turn to defend should that standard be challenged by another group claiming 'special circumstances'... the advocates of such have made it clear that the have NO INTENTION of defending that standard or any other standard which prevents ANY form of deviancy from being acccepted as normality... that such behavior is 'right' and 'good'...

The entire notion is a myth based upon lies and which is sustained by empty platitudes...

Now tell me Matt, what 'good' could POSSIBLY be sustained by THAT?

 

[Montrovant]

Ok, I'll give this a whirl

I think the problem here is that, in humans at least, sex is only occasionally a matter of procreation. Most of the time it is for pleasure. While it is an obvious truth that two homosexuals cannot procreate, that seems fairly immaterial. If having sex for any reason other than procreation is violating a natural law, or having sex of a type which cannot lead to procreation is violating a natural law, then heterosexuals have been doing it throughout human history.

As far as the possible negative consequences of this supposed violation of natural law, there are negative consequences possible from sex without violating it. And I might argue that monogamy could be seen as at least a partial violation; the more sexual partners a person has, the better the chance for children, and the more children are possible.

Again, I hope I am not misrepresenting anything you've said, but I find the idea that homosexual marriage should continue to be prevented based on violating natural law a poor one. By that standard we should (to try and use your previous example) outlaw human flight.

I know you have made other points in your argument against homosexual marriage, and my post here has nothing to do with them. I just wanted to give my two cents on this specific part of the argument

If I've restated anything previously posted in this thread, I apologize! It's long, as are many of the posts, and I admit I haven't kept up with the whole thing.

 

[Ravi]

Interesting...it seems that marriage itself violates the "law of nature" and to conform to the law of nature we should be screwing like bunnies with anyone available since after all evolution demands the survival of the species.

tff!

None of this really matters in the context of the constitution. Constitutionally we are free to do as we choose as long as we neither harm the country nor violate someone else's civil rights.

And PI has once again failed to demonstrate an actual harm.

 

[mattskramer]

No? Hmm... so you're saying that like every other law in existance, where MOST violations of the law go unpunished... but where the certainty of punishment rises with the frequency of such violations; meaning that MOSt of the time, someone can violate a law and by virture of the luck of the odds, that violation goes unnoticed, by virtue that the result of the violation did not rise to the level or result IN hitting the clinker... which ends one's ass in the clink...

For instance, today as I was driving down the road, I eased up beyond the 45mph speed limit... such did not result in serious ramification... but as I pulled onto the road I where the resturant I was wanting to eat lunch is located... I came upon a major accident... where some moron slammed into stopped traffic at a red light, flipping his PU over 6 cars, killing a 31 year old Mother and sending at least 5 people to the hospital, not including himself... all with life threatening, critical condition.

Multiple violations of the laws... and many punishments... but not all violations were punished...

Okay. I see your point. With man-made law, you are more likely to get caught and punished the more often break the law. If you are more careful in committing a crime, you are less likely to get caught and punished. The more careful you are at breaking natural law, you are less likely to get caught and punished. I see the parallel.

Okay. I even see that we are not talking about right and wrong. Natural law might be wrong. It might punish someone who breaks a natural law even if that law is unnecessary. In man-made law, theft might be seen as ethically okay. Such does not matter. It is still against man-made law.

I was contending that nature does not say what is right or wrong. Yet, you are not arguing that point. Sorry for my straw man.

Nature forbids homosexuality, IF one's goal is to live a 1. normal, 2. healthy life and 3. procreate one's genetic lineage beyond one's self...

Being abnormal is not right or wrong. People can be gay and healthy. A gay person can procreate his genetic lineage – but without the help of his same-sex partner. Therefore, your notion that nature forbids homosexuality is wrong.

Okay. 1. That which is “Normal” is normal. That which is natural is natural – and not necessarily good or bad.

2.A homosexual lifestyle is more dangerous to one’s health to the extent that the homosexual is not careful with whom he chooses as a partner. As it is with the heterosexual lifestyle if one is promiscuous and not careful in whom one chooses then relationships can have bad consequences. If you are going to break a natural law or man-made law, be careful.

3 Homosexual couples can procreate – but they must find something (sperm in one case or eggs in another case) that they don’t have. In so doing, only one partner at a time can send one’s lineage beyond one’s self. Unfortunately it is not yet possible for 2 men to join their DNA in the creation of a baby. Yet, each partner can have a baby outside his homosexual union. There are surrogate mothers for gay couples and sperm banks for lesbian couples.

Also, even if we allow gay marriage, life will go on. There will still be straight people having babies. There will still be surrogate mothers and sperm banks available for those couples who can’t (for whatever reason) make babies.

 

[mattskramer]

Ok, I'll give this a whirl

I think the problem here is that, in humans at least, sex is only occasionally a matter of procreation. Most of the time it is for pleasure. While it is an obvious truth that two homosexuals cannot procreate, that seems fairly immaterial. If having sex for any reason other than procreation is violating a natural law, or having sex of a type which cannot lead to procreation is violating a natural law, then heterosexuals have been doing it throughout human history.

As far as the possible negative consequences of this supposed violation of natural law, there are negative consequences possible from sex without violating it. And I might argue that monogamy could be seen as at least a partial violation; the more sexual partners a person has, the better the chance for children, and the more children are possible.

Again, I hope I am not misrepresenting anything you've said, but I find the idea that homosexual marriage should continue to be prevented based on violating natural law a poor one. By that standard we should (to try and use your previous example) outlaw human flight.

I know you have made other points in your argument against homosexual marriage, and my post here has nothing to do with them. I just wanted to give my two cents on this specific part of the argument

If I've restated anything previously posted in this thread, I apologize! It's long, as are many of the posts, and I admit I haven't kept up with the whole thing.

Good point. I guess that if we are to say that it is beneficial for us to follow natural law (right or wrong) then we should find out what the natural law says. If it says that we are to have our genetic makeup continue, then having multiple sex partners is condoned by natural law. Hmmm.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Interesting...it seems that marriage itself violates the "law of nature" ...

Of course it 'seems' that way to you... But you're an imbecile; an ignoramous... a prattling buffon of the lowest order... you're a site TROLL whose purpose is nothing beyond see youself POST and to disrupt any thread which contests the advocacy of sexual deviancy...

You see if you weren't a COMPLETE IDIOT, of NO DISCERNIBLE INTELELCTUAL MEANS, you'd actually be able to offer a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid defense of sexual deviancy and advance a sound basis for why abnormality should be stripped from the venacular to accommodate those experiencing 'special circumstances'...

But you are saddled with stark intellectual means, thus you relegate yourself to advancing obtuse retorts, projecting lies and myth and all on the basis of empty platitudes...

and to conform to the law of nature we should be screwing like bunnies with anyone available since after all evolution demands the survival of the species.

Golly... What we have here is the Readers Digest version of your entire ARGUMENT...

Thus the point of the CONTEST... As the biological imperative is to procreate and to do so through a sustainable rate of growth, which is MODERATED by the nucleus element of the culture; the Bi-gender FAMILY, who determines their rate of conception based upon their needs and means...

Where such is skewed, is through the advocacy that SEX FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASURE, over-rides the inherent responsibilities of the IMPERATIVE...

Again... that all goes towards underscoring your intellectual deficiencies... Meaning that IF you were not an IMBECILE... you'd understand that simple, yet incontestable FACT.

None of this really matters in the context of the constitution.

NOooooo... because the Constitution doesn't even MENTION RESPONSIBILITY... that it is implied at every point in the US Constitutin, is beside the point...; that NO RIGHT can exist absent the responsibility to defend that right through the maintenance of one's own behavior, to ensure that one does not infringe upon the rights of others through the exercising of that right... is MEANINGLESS you you idiots...

Constitutionally we are free to do as we choose as long as we neither harm the country nor violate someone else's civil rights.

WOW! Folks that is what is known as rhetorically dancing on the head of a pin.

The member wants to qualify freedom as being that which does not harm the country... (based upon her modified definition of harm, which is certain to be stripped of the moral context which is intrinsic to the concept of HARM...) and the enumerated civil rights... meaning rights which are established through the legal code.

Of course, it has been established that the advocacy of sexual deviancy inflicts harm onto the culture through the lowering of cultural standards of public behavior; further, this advocacy harms the culture through the deception foisted through the implication advanced by the advocacy for normalization of sexual deviancy, that the 'Homosexual Marriage' merely established a minor 'tweaking' of the definition of Marriage and would otherwise not affect the culture or the standard of marriage beyond simply opening culturally critical institution to those who bring with them 'special circumstances' which otherwise prohibit them from participating in Marriage...'

When in truth, and conclusively established as a fact, by this very thread, the Advocacy of the normalization of sexual deviancy intends, through their effort to redefine marriage, to STRIP THE CULTURE OF EVERY STANDARD which otherwise precludes the acceptance of sexual deviancy...

This thread began on the scenario wherein Homosexual marriage had been accepted by the culture, on the above noted grounds, that the Homosexual community and their advocates has simply intended to modify the marriage standard to include homosexuals... but that the institution and the necessary standards which sustain the institution, were not being challenged... just the scope of that standards, which provented the 'special circumstances' of the homosexual community...

Thus the culture could rest easy, as the new standard was secured and would be defended against further contest...

So the OP simply challenges the Advocates of Homosexual Marriage to DEFEND THEIR NEW STANDARD AGAINST THE NEXT LOGICALLY PREDICTABLE CONTEST... that of the Polygamists...

The question now becomes, what defense has the homosexual lobby, which is present on this board and who have chronically come in mass to defend itself against ANY post or member who contest their 'rights' to corrode the culture with their incessant breying for more liniency towards debauchery... and who have come to this thread to participate in just that... WHAT DEFENSE HAVE THESE OPEN MINDED, MODERATE THINKERS, WHO ASK TO CULTURE TO JUST "TWEAK" THE STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE A LITTLE... WHAT DEFENSE HAVE THEY ADVANCED TOWARDS DEFENDING THEIR NEW STANDARD from those who come to ask us to 'tweak the standard to accommodate more than two people who seek legal recognition of marriage...'

The answer is that NOT ONE of the relevant advocates has produced a SINGLE attempt to defend THEIR NEW STANDARD FROM ANY FURTHER CONTEST...

What's more... to teh individual, they have professed their feelings that they see no reason why the Polygamist should be precluded from participation, thus public acceptance of their membership within the standards of Marriage...

Meaning that their plea to 'tweak' the standards of Marriage is a LIE of the damnable variety...! Their effort is nothing short of decpetion, as they have NO INTENTION to defend ANY standard which precludes ANY deviancy from gaining the legitimacy which they feel Marriage provides...

Sadly... as with the case of every leftist policy... where Marriage is stripped of any discernible standard... it can no longer serve as a measure of legitimacy... and THAT friends, EVEN IT IF IS ARGUED THAT SUCH IS NOT THEIR GOAL... is the certain reality in which their less nefarious would-be goal would produce.

Thus harming the culture, the nation and violating the civil rights of those individuals who MEET THE STANDARD TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR POSSESSING THE AUTHORITY WHICH COMES WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF ONE'S RIGHTS, TO SUSTAIN THE MORAL IMPERATIVE FOUNDED IN THE BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE AND ENJOYING THE PRIVILEGES WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE JUST THAT!

And PI has once again failed to demonstrate an actual harm.

Yet another common empty platitude advanced by this TROLL!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ok, I'll give this a whirl

I think the problem here is that, in humans at least, sex is only occasionally a matter of procreation. Most of the time it is for pleasure.

Monty... you've just jumped the rhetorical shark...

That nature sustained the biological imperative through the hormonal influence that invokes sex with pleasure, doesn't even BEGIN to alter the biological function which nature intended to impart through that tactic.

And such is the specific function of the cultural mores which determine that Casual Sexual intercourse is unacceptable behavior.

What you're demonstrating is merely the old adage that what one generation accepts, the next will embrace... meaning that you erroneous believe that popular concesus somehow stands as sound, sustainable principle; and this founded upon the perceived popular consensus that engaging in sexual interourse for entertainment is perfectly acceptable... and further that the cultural mores that contest such are just arbitrary 'rules' created from the ether by the old control freaks...

While it is an obvious truth that two homosexuals cannot procreate, that seems fairly immaterial.

Really? Well then if that's immaterial, then to be consistent; given that the issue is homosexual marriage, you'd have to believe that procreation is immaterial to Marriage...

If having sex for any reason other than procreation is violating a natural law, or having sex of a type which cannot lead to procreation is violating a natural law, then heterosexuals have been doing it throughout human history.

WHOA! You jumped right past the point of validity there...

That sex is pursued for entertainment, is certainly NOT a violation of natural law, per se... as nature provided for sex to be percieved as pleasure... where such violates nature, is where the pursuit of sexual pleasure COMPETES with, or otherwise CONFLICTS with that imperative.

Surely we can agree that sexual play between two individuals of the same gender, does not serve the interests of sustaining the species... and that conception when one is not prepared; or to put it more accurately, when one lacks the means to sustain the resulting child... also does not serve the interests of sustaining the species... as where a people have populated themselves beyond the means of the land to feed them or where their numbers do not provide for sufficient relief from one another that the value of life no longer represents a point of tolerance... the species is naturally threatened... all of which defines the morality element of the biological imperative...

Thus the natural balance is struck, wherein the biological imperative is balanced through the moral imperative intrinsic to it, which sustains viability; Viability which is represented by the norm; all of which comprise that bed-rock of viable, self-sustaining cultural standards which serve to moderate sexual activity, limiting to the extent that is possible, without restricting the freedom of the individual to pursue the fulfillment of their own lives, through their recognizing and respecting; thus maintaining the inherent responsibilities of the right to do so (See: Biological Imperative.) ...

Specifically, where such is recognized as the sancity of MARRIAGE... defined as TWO individuals who repesent the two distinct genders... who join as ONE... (you do understand that this concept spoke to the physical union of the two distinct genders... right?) wherein the single entity bears children, who are influenced through the committed, monogamous relationship and inherent traits of both genders... where procreation is moderated, to the extent that is possible, by the perceived means and needs of the bi-gender progenitors.

As far as the possible negative consequences of this supposed violation of natural law, there are negative consequences possible from sex without violating it. And I might argue that monogamy could be seen as at least a partial violation; the more sexual partners a person has, the better the chance for children, and the more children are possible.

You might... but such could not be sustained... As the goal of the imperative is to sustain the species... not to kill it due to flooding the planet with human beings... Nature's tendency is towards balance... and it's entirely possible that Homsoexuality itself is a function of the biological imperative which serves to moderate population... culling from the genetic herd, the weak genetic link... which serves reason and follows the historical cycle of homosexual 'populairty.

Again, I hope I am not misrepresenting anything you've said, but I find the idea that homosexual marriage should continue to be prevented based on violating natural law a poor one.

Not at all Monty... We simply disagree on a few things.

I hope you see the reasoning which I am advancing...

By that standard we should (to try and use your previous example) outlaw human flight.

No no no no... I was not advocating that we outlaw flight sir... I'm all for it... speaking as a licensed pilot...

My point was that where we contest the laws of nature, if you will; it is imperative that we undertstand the principles involved and do so with the full respect for the certainties that such a challenge is produce, and but QUICK... where one fails to do so.

The Advocates of the normalization of sexual deviancy are selling this farce as the analogical equivilent that if we leap from the precipice, that we'll FLY LIKE A BIRD! Which is not true and demonstrates the stark ignorance of the principles at play in both relevant analogical issues; which is the basis for my conclusion that the entire scope of the advocacy of the normalization of sexual deviancy is a myth, founded upon lies and sustained through the advancement of empty platitudes.

I know you have made other points in your argument against homosexual marriage, and my post here has nothing to do with them. I just wanted to give my two cents on this specific part of the argument

Fair enough sir... and I thank you for your considerable time invested; and intellectual consideration.

 

[Montrovant]

A few quick questions.

Would homosexual marriage be acceptable if, as with human flight, it is understood that there are inherent dangers and care must be taken to avoid the negative consequences? Put another way, is the presentation of the advocates for homosexual marriage as much a problem as the act itself?

If a society has overpopulation problems, does homosexual marriage become acceptable, as a function of population control?

Do you feel that our society considers casual sex immoral? Has it always done so? What about other societies, both current and historical? I guess I'm asking if you are saying societies who accept casual sex go against natural law.

I'm glad we have been able to have this discussion in a polite fashion, and I appreciate both your responses and the tone in which you present them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A few quick questions.

Would homosexual marriage be acceptable if, as with human flight, it is understood that there are inherent dangers and care must be taken to avoid the negative consequences? Put another way, is the presentation of the advocates for homosexual marriage as much a problem as the act itself?

If a society has overpopulation problems, does homosexual marriage become acceptable, as a function of population control?

Do you feel that our society considers casual sex immoral? Has it always done so? What about other societies, both current and historical? I guess I'm asking if you are saying societies who accept casual sex go against natural law.

I'm glad we have been able to have this discussion in a polite fashion, and I appreciate both your responses and the tone in which you present them.

First, you're welcome and it's always my goal to return the same level of civility which is imparted towards me... and I appreciate yours, as well...

Now with regard to your point; Homosexuals are not suitable for marriage under any circumstances for all of the previously stated reasons...

But with that said; the human being is not suited for flight... without modifying their circumstance... and I'm sure you agree, that one can flap their arms until they no longer possess the means to do so and flight will never be realized... despite their sincere desire to fly.

Such is the case with the homosexual who seeks the legitimacy of Marriage... one can't be legitimate when one does not possess legitimacy... which, we can be sure is the goal here... but setting that aside for the moment... their STATED goal is what?

Wouldn't you agree that their stated goal is to obtain the 'economic benefits which are common to marriage'... the latest number I've seen them report is some 1700 economic benefits of marriage... In 6 months that will be 2500... but you get the idea... They further demand that the Religious aspects of marriage be stripped from the issue... demanding that the 'sanctity of Marriage' is a religious notion that is forbidden by the 'separation of Church and State clause in the USC...' And setting aside the myth on which that farce rest... we can all agree, I am sure; that the secular left is portraying their desires for what amounts to the simple LEGAL RECOGNITION for 'Homosexual Unions'... which is essentially a business arrangement...

And such is the basis for their legal arguments... wherein they come to demand 'equal treatment under the law...' based upon these various 'economic benefits and privileges...'

Now here's where technology and an understanding of the principles at play, are entered into the calculation:
Homosexuality is NOT suitable for Marriage because by its very nature, it does not rise to the standard required for Marriage. Thus where the homosexuals demand equal economic benefits, it is only fair that the culture accommodate their special circumstances by affording them the SAME or similar economic benefits and privileges... to the extent that is possible. Obviously there would be no child credits, as they're no more suited for parenting than they are marriage... Granted some states differ; but in my state, Florida... Homosexuals cannot adopt children, nor are they accepted as forster parents, nor are they accepted as potential places to house foster children, where no other alternative is available... and such serves the biological imperative...

Anywho...

To the extent that is possible... we should provide a means wherein the Homo-sexual deviant is afforded the same or similar benefits that normal people are afforded; but without providing their deviancy with the legitimacy that it does not deserve, and to which they are not suited...

So how do we do that?

We tell them about LEGALZOOM.com... where ANY two or more homosexuals who are so inclined can go RIGHT NOW and incorporate their Unions... such provides that they are a distinct legal entity... which bears every ounce of official recognition, in terms of legal status, as does Marriage... it provides for the sharing of pensions, health insurance, income, and every form of liability under the sun... Where such does not suit them; or where such is found lacking... the homosexual lobby can use the SAME MEANS of POLITICAL COERCION with substantially less effort and expense, than they have been applying to force the public to accept them for marriage, but with an actual chance in hell of success...

And PRESTO... you have used the technology available, to provide the abnormal with the legal position which they have chronically stated that they seek... 'rights in the form of economic privilege' are distributed equitably and the full understanding of the principles at play have been respected, preventing the culture from accepting the unacceptable... to their own benefit by preventing that culture from realizing the certain calamity of doing so...

And when the Polygamist come to demand THEIR RIGHTS... we just pass along LEGALZOOM.COM and they can form their own business arrangement to accommodate their particular kink...

The legitimacy of Marriage is preserved, the homosexuals get to pay their fair share... and endure the liability of the having firmed up the arrangements... settled the math, so to speak... and the Plogy-gangs... MORE power to thier misguided asses... Want ten wives... GO GET 'em... and dont ya just KNOW that that is TEN REAL WINNERS... All beauty queens with exceptional high levels of the all encompassing self-esteem!

But I think that covers it Monty... Let me know how it shakes out...

 

[KittenKoder]

Want to know what pisses me off, the anti-gay marriage folks telling MY religions who they can and can't marry.

 

[Ravi]

an ocean of nonsense that never answers a question

Pubic, you are perfectly entitled to believe that homosexuality is against the laws of nature but you are incorrect. It has been around since the beginning of time.

Marriage, on the other hand, is a social construct and most often a religious construct.

Your argument that homosexuality is against nature is an invalid point and a rather stupid one to base your arguments on.

To sum up your beliefs:

1. Homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals cannot have children together.

2. Society is threatened if homosexuals are allowed benefits enjoyed by straight couples.

3. Allowing one group of people rights is to be denied on the off chance that others might demand rights.

None of these fits your need to prove that homosexuality denies anyone civil rights and you have failed to demonstrate a societal threat that justifies your position.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Want to know what pisses me off, the anti-gay marriage folks telling MY religions who they can and can't marry.

Well THERE'S your problem kitty... First, no one is telling you who you can't marry... We're just telling you that to be MARRIED you need to make application wherein you establish in the application that the TWO individuals are or the distinct biological genders.... You can file application with ANYONE you can talk into marrying you... Ya see that's because Marriage is being equally applied to ALL individuals, without regard to race, creed, age, or sexual orientation...

Secondly, it seems that you're in the wrong department... you need to take complaints regarding the biological imperative, up with NATURE... She's the one that determined that homosexuality is a design of nature wherein those determined unsuitable from the genetic herd... are culled... thus determining, by default that you don't rise to the standard required in Marriage.

Of course, if you're merely seeking equitable economic privilege with that of normal people, you can incorporate with your 'most special friend'; wherein your 'union' will be recognized as a distinct separate legal entity...

It will not provide your deviancy with any sense of legitimacy... but neither would marriage, as a result of you being accepted for such would destroy, in and of that acceptance, the very concept of Marriage being associated with legitimacy...

Much as a Law Degree would lose it legitimacy if they started selling them at the 7-11; 3 for a Dollar... when the purchase of a fill-up.

 

[KittenKoder]

Want to know what pisses me off, the anti-gay marriage folks telling MY religions who they can and can't marry.

Well THERE'S your problem kitty... First, no one is telling you who you can't marry... We're just telling you that to be MARRIED you need to make application wherein you establish in the application that the TWO individuals are or the distinct biological genders.... You can file application with ANYONE you can talk into marrying you... Ya see that's because Marriage is being equally applied to ALL individuals, without regard to race, creed, age, or sexual orientation...

Secondly, it seems that you're in the wrong department... you need to take complaints regarding the biological imperative, up with NATURE... She's the one that determined that homosexuality is a design of nature wherein those determined unsuitable from the genetic herd... are culled... thus determining, by default that you don't rise to the standard required in Marriage.

Of course, if you're merely seeking equitable economic privilege with that of normal people, you can incorporate with your 'most special friend'; wherein your 'union' will be recognized as a distinct separate legal entity...

It will not provide your deviancy with any sense of legitimacy... but neither would marriage, as a result of you being accepted for such would destroy, in and of that acceptance, the very concept of Marriage being associated with legitimacy...

Much as a Law Degree would lose it legitimacy if they started selling them at the 7-11; 3 for a Dollar... when the purchase of a fill-up.

No, you are dictating which religious values are more support through legislation.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

an ocean of nonsense that never answers a question

Pubic, you are perfectly entitled to believe that homosexuality is against the laws of nature but you are incorrect. It has been around since the beginning of time.

Marriage, on the other hand, is a social construct and most often a religious construct.

Your argument that homosexuality is against nature is an invalid point and a rather stupid one to base your arguments on.

To sum up your beliefs:

1. Homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals cannot have children together.

2. Society is threatened if homosexuals are allowed benefits enjoyed by straight couples.

3. Allowing one group of people rights is to be denied on the off chance that others might demand rights.

None of these fits your need to prove that homosexuality denies anyone civil rights and you have failed to demonstrate a societal threat that justifies your position.

Ahh the oft advanced but never successful red herring... Aren't they beautiful? Such a lovely plummage at this stage of abuse...

What we have in Ravi's most recent obfuscation is her attempt to revise the opposition's argument to suit her invalid rationalization... such is the natural defense of the weak mind.

Let's take this farce as it comes:

Pubic, you are perfectly entitled to believe that homosexuality is against the laws of nature but you are incorrect. It has been around since the beginning of time.

If I had actually advanced that conclusion this might be a fair point... sadly, for this imbecile, I've made no such argument... My position is that homosexuality is a function of nature, which competes with the biological imperative of the species... thus it is not suited for Marriage which serves to sustain that imperative.

Marriage, on the other hand, is a social construct and most often a religious construct.

Yes... that is true... a social construct designed to serve the interests of the biological imperative; the design of the species in terms of normality and the function of procreation; wherein the culture protects that imperative by establishing basic standards which prevent competing functions from gaining legitimacy thus screwing the species by subjecting it to the stark ramifactions that nature provides for those who engage in such. Extinction being the first to come to mind.

Your argument that homosexuality is against nature is an invalid point and a rather stupid one to base your arguments on.

My argument is AGAIN: That homosexuality competes with the biological imperative which is represented in the biological design, that FTR: establishes NORMALITY... it is not only valid... it is indisputable, incontestable and an immutable fact established by none other than the Creator... Nature's God. You are entitled to disagree with that design and when you become the Creator, you can design your universe to provide that Homosexuality is the designed norm... which given your attention span, should work GREAT FOR YOU... as it's not likely to take that long from beginning to end... comparitively speaking.

To sum up your beliefs:

1. Homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals cannot have children together.

I make no judgement in this argument that Homsoexuality is right OR wrong... that it simply competes with, standing antithetical to the biological imperative... I would say that given the evidence and it's history, that NATURE has determined such to be wrong... but I'm not here to speak for nature; but merely to note the FREAKIN' OBVIOUS!

2. Society is threatened if homosexuals are allowed benefits enjoyed by straight couples.

To the contrary, I have REPEATEDLY offered perfectly viable alternatives which are available RIGHT NOW, which serve to provide the oft claimed deception that economic benefits are your goal... that you've ignored each one of those DOZENS of statements, preferring to advance this obtuse pretense is simply just more evidence that my conclusions which determine that you and your lobby are not TRULY interested in such... but greater, vastly more destructive ends... Specifically the destruction of Marriage as a standard of any kind...

3. Allowing one group of people rights is to be denied on the off chance that others might demand rights.

I am not aware of a SINGLE RIGHT which is being denied to ANY HOMOSEXUAL ANYWHERE... if you'd like to cite specific violations, I'll consider the more cogent samples.

None of these fits your need to prove that homosexuality denies anyone civil rights and you have failed to demonstrate a societal threat that justifies your position.[/

Homosexuality demonstrates it own failure to rise to the necessary standard of Marriage... it proves such by default...

And despite the implication of your most recent platitude... I am not trying to prove anything... I HAVE PROVEN that homosexuality is not suitable for Marriage; I have PROVEN that you and the full scope of the advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy is NOT interested in 'equitable distribution of economic privilege,' which is common to marriage; and that your stated desire to simply 'tweak' the standard of Marriage' to accommodate your special circumstances is a LIE... which serves to sustain the myth on which your advocacy rests and is buttressed through NOTHING more than a litanny of empty platitudes... such as those you've just advanced.

Anything else? Or will you just return to project your long discredited deception that you've some question which has yet to be addressed?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Want to know what pisses me off, the anti-gay marriage folks telling MY religions who they can and can't marry.

Well THERE'S your problem kitty... First, no one is telling you who you can't marry... We're just telling you that to be MARRIED you need to make application wherein you establish in the application that the TWO individuals are or the distinct biological genders.... You can file application with ANYONE you can talk into marrying you... Ya see that's because Marriage is being equally applied to ALL individuals, without regard to race, creed, age, or sexual orientation...

Secondly, it seems that you're in the wrong department... you need to take complaints regarding the biological imperative, up with NATURE... She's the one that determined that homosexuality is a design of nature wherein those determined unsuitable from the genetic herd... are culled... thus determining, by default that you don't rise to the standard required in Marriage.

Of course, if you're merely seeking equitable economic privilege with that of normal people, you can incorporate with your 'most special friend'; wherein your 'union' will be recognized as a distinct separate legal entity...

It will not provide your deviancy with any sense of legitimacy... but neither would marriage, as a result of you being accepted for such would destroy, in and of that acceptance, the very concept of Marriage being associated with legitimacy...

Much as a Law Degree would lose it legitimacy if they started selling them at the 7-11; 3 for a Dollar... when the purchase of a fill-up.

No, you are dictating which religious values are more support through legislation.

NOooooooo... I'm merely pointing out that Homosexuality competes with the biological imperative and as such doesn't rise to the level of the necessary standards of Marriage, which sustains that imperative... You're wecome to believe any religion ya like...

How IS Elvis BTW? And is he still pickin'? Did he return to Gospel? he always said he wanted to... and the big question? Did he break his crippling dependency on rhinestones?