Thread: Gay Marriage - why not?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Don't take this as me not appreciating the joke, because I did; but he didn't! Even the religious reasons are just rationalizations! There is no part of the bible that a person can point to and say, "according to this, if we let you marry, then we will go to hell". There is no way someone can rationally believe that it is their concern whether gay people get married or not because of anything in the bible.

Not so much the "if we let you marry, then WE will go to hell". It's about the gay couple going to hell. Christians generally feel like it's their job to save the souls of everyone else. Even if that means limiting rights.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Not so much the "if we let you marry, then WE will go to hell". It's about the gay couple going to hell. Christians generally feel like it's their job to save the souls of everyone else. Even if that means limiting rights.

If that were true, then logically they would go about saving these people in the ways that their religion dictates; by loving their neighbor, turning the other cheek (so to speak), 'judge not, lest you be judged' and all that. Not subjugation through the legal system. Sincere followers of Jesus would simply lead by example, as he did and taught to do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If that were true, then logically they would go about saving these people in the ways that their religion dictates; by loving their neighbor, turning the other cheek (so to speak), 'judge not, lest you be judged' and all that. Not subjugation through the legal system. Sincere followers of Jesus would simply lead by example, as he did and taught to do.

Well I think you know as well as I do that "sincere followers of Jesus" are far and few between. The "judgmental, ex-whore, you're-not-christian-so-you're-going-to-hell Christian" seems to be a whole lot more prevalent.

But luckily, the judgmental asshole types that we throw eggs at are the loudest, but they aren't the majority. Reality / science has taken a pretty firm foothold in the US, at least in the civilized parts of it.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Well I think you know as well as I do that "sincere followers of Jesus" are far and few between. The "judgmental, ex-whore, you're-not-christian-so-you're-going-to-hell Christian" seems to be a whole lot more prevalent.

Oh, I know that. My point is just that those people are not really concerned with saving the gays from their own sinful practice; that is just a rationalization for the more basic belief of "those effing queers are doing shit that is just gross. Someone should put a stop to this, what can we do?"

Originally Posted by ninja9578

But luckily, the judgmental asshole types that we throw eggs at are the loudest, but they aren't the majority. Reality / science has taken a pretty firm foothold in the US, at least in the civilized parts of it.

I'm going to find you a "Pimp for Science" bumper sticker.

Sometimes I think that nobody should be allowed to get married and that all sex is gross. But only sometimes. I still think that anybody should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others and that even though sex can be gross, it still is fun. And some people have fun in other ways than I do. And all forms of love should be equally legal. But that is an interesting point that religions should not be forced to perform ceremonies that they don't believe in.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Sometimes I think that nobody should be allowed to get married and that all sex is gross. But only sometimes. I still think that anybody should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others and that even though sex can be gross, it still is fun. And some people have fun in other ways than I do. And all forms of love should be equally legal. But that is an interesting point that religions should not be forced to perform ceremonies that they don't believe in.

It certainly is a valid point. The problem is when the government has some form of power over that church. Until that power is changed, things like what is going on in Denmark right now will happen.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm going to find you a "Pimp for Science" bumper sticker.

I have one, it's called a Darwin Fish.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I have one, it's called a Darwin Fish.

I was thinking something more like this;

This happens to be a subject I've got quite a bit of personal investment in. Throughout my experiences debating Gay marriage, a vast majority of the opposing arguments are based in religion. However, there have been a few that are more about the human condition. I'll share them, with the hope that nobody interprets these opinions as my own.

Gays won't make good parents.
- The argument here is that the human child, throughout the evolution of man, has benefited from the upbringing of both a mother and a father. There is an equilibrium of masculine and feminine in the traditional family archetype, and tampering with it may be dangerous to the development of a child. I submitted that I have many well-adjusted friends who were raised by single parents, but the argument was that having two mothers, or two fathers would somehow confuse a child by over-masculaizing or feminizing them.

Marriage would condone a lifestyle of deviance.
- I guess the idea here is that homosexuals are "promiscuous" and "unhealthy" in their pursuit of sexuality. I can actually agree to this, but only after agreeing that heterosexuals are "promiscuous" and "unhealthy" in their own sexual endeavors. I can understand the want to promote safe sex, but I can't abide by the suppression of human rights as means of doing so. I also fail to see how marriage, a promise of monogamy, could be seen as promoting promiscuity.

Homosexuality is unnatural, in the sense that it doesn't occur in nature.
- out of all the arguments, I think this one has the most validity. I've put quite a bit of thought into it. To say that homosexuality doesn't exist outside of nature, one must look at humanity itself as a construction that is outside of nature. For the sake of this argument, I'll say that assumption is fair. Upon separating human beings from other animals, we are able to compare and see what make the two different. The human capacity for reasoning, complex emotion, and self expression to name a few. We have evolved past the need to base all of our actions on the instinct of survival.

Now, there actually are many documented examples of homosexuality outside of humanity, but I actually don't think they are valid, in terms of this argument. My reasoning for this is that love as we understand it is one of the very things that sets us apart from animals. Sure we see examples of companionship in the animal kingdom, but every authority on zoology that I've spoken to says that one of the main mistakes that people make is in thinking that animals love in the sense that we as humans do.

So, the anomaly in human life is not only homosexuality, heterosexual love as well. Sure this still leaves the argument that "The natural thing to do is preserve your life by spreading your genes", but I think as humans we have evolved past that. Through the development of language (both aural and written), we have created ways for individuals to live on well after there genes have been taken from the pool. This may in fact have inspired the individuals who have helped human kind come as far as it has. Is it too far off to think that Aristotle and Plato were profoundly motivated by the desire to live on in spirit, rather than in flesh? I digress from my point.

It's unfair to compare human life with "natural life" in such a way, because they exist on fundamentally different plains, despite the congruences we can see between the two.

If you understand what knowledge is, you must admit that all standards of human behavior are abstracted directly from the environment. What this entails, however, is that the mind is functional enough to do it. These abstractions directly from the environment set all wisdom, knowledge, even moral codes and ethics. However, they remain unknown to those incapable of making the abstraction, and words cannot ever substitute for those abstractions--the same as a lecture will not fill your lungs, or your belly.

And this is not something of my own fabrication, it is something your own body has told you every day of your life--every environmental acquisition system of the body can only contrubute life to the body when it is doing its own work--shades of Plato. If the mind were truly working, this world would be a lot better place.

As far as social functions go, I am not heavy on them, I tend to believe that one cannot understand a universe of discourse while not comrehending the unit. The same is true for me if someone tells me they have a clear idea of what 100 is, yet cannot really explain what the 1 is.