Bon pour vous, France! France legalizes gay marriage.

#41
So by your definition homosexual behavior cannot be "natural" since it doesn't support the continuation of the species, correct?
Solid point. Plenty of species have been observed to have recreational sex. I'll adjust the definition to the behaviors we observe in our species as well as others throughout the animal kingdom. Homosexual behavior obviously doesn't prevent the continuation of species.

I can't think of anyone who would consider the obsession with celibacy as something natural. This idea is sold as some form of piety only to be released upon children behind closed doors.

All religions claim legislation to regulate matter of sex and the more extreme prurience, the more extreme the repression. Sexual impulses are laden with prohibition, guilt and shame. Masturbation, oral, anal, non-missionary position. Saint Paul in the New Testament expresses both fear and contempt for women. There's some primitive fear that an entire gender is unclean and can be defiled, but is at the same time a temptation to sin that is impossible to resist. Islam uses the angle of sexual indulgence as reward in the afterlife. Christianity is far too repressed for such an offer and never has been able to form up as compelling an afterlife as islam. Instead, it offers up lavish promises of sadistic eternal suffering for sexual non-adherents, which is really the same point made in a different way.

As you're helping me think it out, I'm beginning to think religion's obsession with sexual repression in general is the root of the specific issue with homosexuality and not really the act itself.
 
#42
Maybe, but then again Moses' law represented a large enough leap over previous moral codes that even Greco-Roman observers centuries later who were anti-Semitic begrudgingly acknowledged its quality.

I’m not saying that outside of Christianity (or Judaism or any other religion for that matter) there is no morality, but it’s also not accurate to say that Religion has provided nothing positive to the development of morality.

With all of that said, coming back to the OT of this thread, the nature of morality within any specific religion, Christianity included is certainly an evolving process. The issue of Homosexuality and specifically gay marriage is not a clean-cut issue, at least as far as what our response as Christians should be.
Well, the first 4 commandments are all about establishing power and making sure followers keep the master numero uno and have nothing to do with morals. The rest I'd argue people couldn't do with great frequency before then or there wouldn't be people around in the first place.

And it's important to keep separate the religious context of marriage and legal marriage. I could care less whether a church or its followers wants to recognize anything as being legitimate whether it's marriage or anything else. But whether the gov't should recognize a legal contract between two consenting adults? I simply don't have the conscience. I guess my immorality gets the best of me.
 

lucas mccain

Triple Platinum
#43
Well, the first 4 commandments are all about establishing power and making sure followers keep the master numero uno and have nothing to do with morals. The rest I'd argue people couldn't do with great frequency before then or there wouldn't be people around in the first place.

And it's important to keep separate the religious context of marriage and legal marriage. I could care less whether a church or its followers wants to recognize anything as being legitimate whether it's marriage or anything else. But whether the gov't should recognize a legal contract between two consenting adults? I simply don't have the conscience. I guess my immorality gets the best of me.
The first 4 commandments have much to do with morals, but that is off topic so I'll refrain.

You say you don't have the conscience to stop two consenting adults from marrying each other. Well, your conscience has shaped your perspective to the point where you have formed an opinion that puts restrictions on others who may have a different perspective than yours.

Why do you set the parameter of "two consenting adults"? Why can't their be multiple consenting adults who want to marry each other? What satisfactorily defines an "adult" to you? Where did you come up with a set age limit? And to the absurd... why can't someone legally marry an animal? Some people love their animals more than humans. Shouldn't they be afforded the same rights and privileges as a married couple?

The point I'm getting at is you have placed your own limitations and standards on marriage whether you admit it or not. You simply don't like the fact that an established definition of marriage set by a democratic society coincides with God's intolerance towards homosexual acts.
 
#44
I'll adjust the definition to the behaviors we observe in our species as well as others throughout the animal kingdom. Homosexual behavior obviously doesn't prevent the continuation of species.

Actually, I think you would agree that exclusively homosexual behavior obviously does prevent the continuation of species.

To the larger point, though, I think your definition of "natural" behavior as any behavior seen throughout the animal kingdom still begs the question of moral behavior.

Just because a behavior is witnessed in the animal kingdom, does that make it a behavior that humans should embrace? Cannibalism, parents eating their young, territorial wars, etc are all behaviors seen in nature, and while by your definition they may be considered "natural" behaviors, does that make them "right"?

If not, why not? Leaving religion completely out of the discussion, how do you determine what is "right" behavior? By another one of those "unnatural" aspect of humans, the popular vote?

My point is that everyone gets their morality from somewhere - some from their faith, some from their parents, some from Beavis and Butthead. If you want to say that all faith-based morals are evil, that's fine - but at least be willing to share the basis of your alternative morality so that it too can be analyzed and discussed.
 
Last edited:
#45
The first 4 commandments have much to do with morals, but that is off topic so I'll refrain.

You say you don't have the conscience to stop two consenting adults from marrying each other. Well, your conscience has shaped your perspective to the point where you have formed an opinion that puts restrictions on others who may have a different perspective than yours.

Why do you set the parameter of "two consenting adults"? Why can't their be multiple consenting adults who want to marry each other? What satisfactorily defines an "adult" to you? Where did you come up with a set age limit? And to the absurd... why can't someone legally marry an animal? Some people love their animals more than humans. Shouldn't they be afforded the same rights and privileges as a married couple?

The point I'm getting at is you have placed your own limitations and standards on marriage whether you admit it or not. You simply don't like the fact that an established definition of marriage set by a democratic society coincides with God's intolerance towards homosexual acts.
I was unaware that passing gay marriage also provided the ability to marry animals, objects, etc. I thought the question at hand was whether two individuals of the same sex can marry, which is where the focus on two consenting adults stems from.
 
#46
I'll adjust the definition to the behaviors we observe in our species as well as others throughout the animal kingdom. Homosexual behavior obviously doesn't prevent the continuation of species.

Actually, I think you would agree that exclusively homosexual behavior obviously does prevent the continuation of species.

To the larger point, though, I think your definition of "natural" behavior as any behavior seen throughout the animal kingdom still begs the question of moral behavior.

Just because a behavior is witnessed in the animal kingdom, does that make it a behavior that humans should embrace? Cannibalism, parents eating their young, territorial wars, etc are all behaviors seen in nature, and while by your definition they may be considered "natural" behaviors, does that make them "right"?

If not, why not? Leaving religion completely out of the discussion, how do you determine what is "right" behavior? By another one of those "unnatural" aspect of humans, the popular vote?

My point is that everyone gets their morality from somewhere - some from their faith, some from their parents, some from Beavis and Butthead. If you want to say that all faith-based morals are evil, that's fine - but at least be willing to share the basis of your alternative morality so that it too can be analyzed and discussed.
Is premarital sex moral - oral, vaginal, all of it? What about dating when one person has no intention of getting married? Is watching porn moral? I don't understand the undeniable and obvious obsession religion has with sex.
 
Last edited:
#47
I was unaware that passing gay marriage also provided the ability to marry animals, objects, etc. I thought the question at hand was whether two individuals of the same sex can marry, which is where the focus on two consenting adults stems from.
His argument often devolves down into marrying animals. Kind of a weird obsession of his. But it clearly is an absurd idiotic argument.
 
#48
Is premarital sex moral - oral, vaginal, all of it? What about dating when one person has no intention of getting married? Is watching porn moral? I don't understand the undeniable and obvious obsession religion has with sex.
Skeeter, I don't think religion has the obsession with sex; humans do. For many people, sex is their religion - everything else is second. Some scientists will argue that biologically speaking, the entire purpose of all life forms is sex; all life is biologically programmed to make sure its genes get passed into the next generation.

Religion, however, is about the relationship between man and a higher power. How man is supposed to behave sexually is defined differently by different religions, but don't know of any major world religion that is obsessed with sexuality. The Apostles Creed, for example, cited by nearly Christians as their profession of faith, has no mention of sexuality. Is Buddhism "obsessed" with sex? Does Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other world religion have sexual behavior as a cornerstone on which their religion is based?

I think any obsession is in the eye of the beholder; and is usually only seen as as an "obsession" if you don't agree with the particular stance of a certain religion.

Anyone can quickly find the answers to your questions, depending on which religious denomination you ask; however, since you have no religion at all, I would be much more interested in learning your answers to these questions as well as the ones I originally posed - and more importantly, the basis for your answers.
 
#49
Skeeter, I don't think religion has the obsession with sex; humans do. For many people, sex is their religion - everything else is second. Some scientists will argue that biologically speaking, the entire purpose of all life forms is sex; all life is biologically programmed to make sure its genes get passed into the next generation.

Religion, however, is about the relationship between man and a higher power. How man is supposed to behave sexually is defined differently by different religions, but don't know of any major world religion that is obsessed with sexuality. The Apostles Creed, for example, cited by nearly Christians as their profession of faith, has no mention of sexuality. Is Buddhism "obsessed" with sex? Does Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other world religion have sexual behavior as a cornerstone on which their religion is based?

I think any obsession is in the eye of the beholder; and is usually only seen as as an "obsession" if you don't agree with the particular stance of a certain religion.

Anyone can quickly find the answers to your questions, depending on which religious denomination you ask; however, since you have no religion at all, I would be much more interested in learning your answers to these questions as well as the ones I originally posed - and more importantly, the basis for your answers.
Regarding obsession, every religion addresses sexuality. Some liberal, some quite strict. And it does through consequence of being man-made. Thus, the assertion that humans have an obsession with sex I agree to a large extent. But the ones I find most obsessed are the ones who repress desire the most. But they all have prescriptions, the basis for which is nothing more than an arrogant claim that children are reared to believe when their ignorant minds know no better and grow up unable to separate fact from fiction. And if you do not adhere to them, then you're not a true believer.

The basis for my answers is a question believers must be able to answer, not me. Believers are the ones who claim to be provided information into things non-believers have not. I know I don't refrain from killing people b/c of any religious foundation.I don't take pleasure in inflicting pain upon others, be it people or animals. I find it quite repulsive. But the opposite occurs quite naturally as well. We even have a name for them: psychopaths and sociopaths. It's how they're wired and has nothing to do with demons, phantasms, spirits, a mythical fight between good and evil, etc.
 

lucas mccain

Triple Platinum
#50
I was unaware that passing gay marriage also provided the ability to marry animals, objects, etc. I thought the question at hand was whether two individuals of the same sex can marry, which is where the focus on two consenting adults stems from.
I guess you keep missing the point. Is it on purpose?
If you were that intent on "focus" then inserting religion into your argument wouldn't have anything to do with it either.
 

lucas mccain

Triple Platinum
#51
His argument often devolves down into marrying animals. Kind of a weird obsession of his. But it clearly is an absurd idiotic argument.
That's funny coming from someone who is defending a "weird obsession". Homosexuals used to be called queer and it wasn't because they were gay either. It referred to the weird obsession that you seem to have no problem with. Give yourself a few years, you'll be defending beastiality as well.
 
#52
I guess you keep missing the point. Is it on purpose?
If you were that intent on "focus" then inserting religion into your argument wouldn't have anything to do with it either.
If there was a point you were trying to make, then why did you muddy it with a bunch of idiotic statements?
 
#53
That's funny coming from someone who is defending a "weird obsession". Homosexuals used to be called queer and it wasn't because they were gay either. It referred to the weird obsession that you seem to have no problem with. Give yourself a few years, you'll be defending beastiality as well.
Another dopey response.

ETA : Ugh, why do I bother?
 
Last edited:
#55
That's funny coming from someone who is defending a "weird obsession". Homosexuals used to be called queer and it wasn't because they were gay either. It referred to the weird obsession that you seem to have no problem with. Give yourself a few years, you'll be defending beastiality as well.

"What is it with you people and animal f**king?" ~ Jon Stewart.

Really? The law is the only thing standing in the way of bestiality and human/animal marriage?
There is room at the table for disagreement among reasonable people but this argument makes me scratch my head in bewilderment. THIS is your worry?

Watch:

http://youtu.be/Zk2XKwRW5u0


I AM very fond of my coffee maker but I'm married (almost 21 years) so we will have to remain "just friends." Then again .... can I bring my coffee maker into a polyamorous relationship. Because we are talking about that good ol' slippery slope, right?

(You have to watch the YouTube link until the very end to get my joke).
 
#56
"What is it with you people and animal f**king?" ~ Jon Stewart.

Really? The law is the only thing standing in the way of bestiality and human/animal marriage?
There is room at the table for disagreement among reasonable people but this argument makes me scratch my head in bewilderment. THIS is your worry?

Watch:

http://youtu.be/Zk2XKwRW5u0


I AM very fond of my coffee maker but I'm married (almost 21 years) so we will have to remain "just friends." Then again .... can I bring my coffee maker into a polyamorous relationship. Because we are talking about that good ol' slippery slope, right?

(You have to watch the YouTube link until the very end to get my joke).
Once again. I love your posts Barbara :)

ETA : and John Corvino is hilarious
 
Last edited:
#57
The basis for my answers is a question believers must be able to answer, not me. Believers are the ones who claim to be provided information into things non-believers have not.
Skeeter, while I don't always agree with your answers, I admire the amount of thought and consideration you normally put into them. This response, though, is surprising. It makes it appear that you are only willing to criticize the beliefs of others, without allowing the same scrutiny of your moral code.

Whatever the reasons for your reluctance, though, I have enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for your insights.
 

lucas mccain

Triple Platinum
#58
"What is it with you people and animal f**king?" ~ Jon Stewart.

Really? The law is the only thing standing in the way of bestiality and human/animal marriage?
There is room at the table for disagreement among reasonable people but this argument makes me scratch my head in bewilderment. THIS is your worry?

Watch:

http://youtu.be/Zk2XKwRW5u0
What you and the guy in the video are missing is what homosexual acts, bestiality and polygamy all have in common - perversion.

They are disgusting acts and to redefine marriage to accommodate one is to open future doors for the others. It may sound outlandish and impossible to you now, but it wasn't to long ago when the thought of two homosexuals marrying each other was not even a remote possibility.

It was only thought of as a joke just like this....


I AM very fond of my coffee maker but I'm married (almost 21 years) so we will have to remain "just friends." Then again .... can I bring my coffee maker into a polyamorous relationship. Because we are talking about that good ol' slippery slope, right?

(You have to watch the YouTube link until the very end to get my joke).

ETA: it wasn't originally "my worry" per se, rather it was a point that went over the heads of simpletons.
 
Last edited:
#59
What you and the guy in the video are missing is what homosexual acts, bestiality and polygamy all have in common - perversion.

They are disgusting acts and to redefine marriage to accommodate one is to open future doors for the others. It may sound outlandish and impossible to you now, but it wasn't to long ago when the thought of two homosexuals marrying each other was not even a remote possibility.

It was only thought of as a joke just like this....





ETA: it wasn't originally "my worry" per se, rather it was a point that went over the heads of simpletons.

Polygymy WAS biblical marriage for a long time, you know. At least it was one form of it.
 
#60
Polygymy WAS biblical marriage for a long time, you know. At least it was one form of it.
Being Biblical doesn't mean it was approved by God, though.

However, the polygamy angle is a worthwhile example to consider. Regardless of whether you think it should be made legal or not, is it a lifestyle you would actively encourage your children to pursue? If your daughter wants to marry a man who currently has five wives, would you encourage and applaud her actions? Why or why not?

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone here from their opinions; I'm simply trying to understand the reasons why some behavior is considered acceptable and other behavior is not. We've heard from people that have stated their beliefs are based on their faith, but I wish those from the non-faith-based crowd would describe what non-violent behavior they consider to be immoral, and why. Is polygamy immoral? Adultery? Prostitution? Cheating on your taxes?