Homosexual Marriage (last part)

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Bishadi, Sep 2, 2011.

  1. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The combining of the terms 'homosexual' (same sex intercourse) and 'marriage' (commitment between male-female for lineage protection), is an OXYMORON of terms.


    Did God tell me that?
     
  2. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Typicla Red Herring.

    Procreation has nothing to do with sexuality.
     
  3. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    even herring procreate with opposite sex
    the male/female combination is how man/women make babies.

    Sexuality is just the descriptions of sexual practice/acts/pursuits by psychologist, not nature.

    Human choice is about the only thing in existence that goes against nature.

    heck it is human choice that enabled mankind to tell themselves they are not a part of 'the garden' and the stupidity of idiots began the concept that 'god' kicked them out or that mankind controls (owns) nature.

    the facts are still on the table. Homosexual is about same sex copulation and marriage is originally based on lineage protection which naturally is of opposite sex copulation.

    the morons, just dont like reality on a plate and it makes their faces RED, hearing/reading and comprehending it
     
  4. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    1 - Homosexulity is not a choice.

    2 - Since Evolution is natural and Evolution has 'given' humans the ability to choose, that does in fact make 'Human choice' natural.

    3 - Proceation has nothing to do with sexuality and/or marriage. - it is a red herring. Marriage is a legal contract that has 1400 legal rights that come with it.

    Any male, regaurdless of sexuality, can be a a father and any female, regaurdless of sexuality, can be a a mother.
     
  5. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anything to deny the undesirables rights.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All right, well, lets take a stab at that one.

    Which part of your sex life is an unalienable right? Much less a right that requires government intervention to support?

    Certainly, a marriage between a man and woman has no guarantee of winding up being perfect, far from it. But, both in terms of religion and science, these 'nuclear' relationship impart important advantages to the children who grow up in this environment. It makes sense to support this institution because it is a force of stability and success for our country.

    Teh current question is about homosexual marriage. The homosexual community is, quite literally, the most sexualized community that I have ever encountered. This is one reason, as mentioned in the previous thread, that AIDS hit the community so hard. If this is what people choose, that is their right. The government should have little incentive to support this lifestyle however. Being homosexual does not change the downside of promiscuity and emotional instability the flow from the lifestyle. That being said, there are obviously very loving same sex couples within the community that are deeply committed to one another. The question is whether or not we should support such unions with federal recognition and financial benefits. I see two things.

    a. The ideal: homosexual couples will commit to each other formally, and share the benefits of a love centered commitment and truely be able to care for their loved one as any other married couple does.

    b. The bene: Some homosexuals will simply have a 'favorite' or a partnership centered on an elevated sense of affection. These will marry, but their relationship with be anything but monogamous. They will continue to see other men or women, even as their 'social' commitment remains to one another. They will also incure benefits from the government in an institution or relationship that would be hard pressed to avoid the down side of such promiscuity.

    In a moral sense, it is enfranchised adultry, and can, will, and should, raise moral questions about support for such a relationship.

    Again, there is a line between personal choice, and a steeper line between government sanction of choices on a societal level.

    c. For arguements sake, we can delve deeper in sexual deviancy. I doubt anyone here would call for the government to support beastiality or pedophilia. In fact, we remain, quite righteously, horrified by this sexual conduct.

    So where do we draw the line at what is sexually acceptable and what is not sexually acceptable? For instance, we is a man railing a horse deeply offensive and seen as clearly wrong, but a man railing another man .... natural and acceptable? Both will claim that they simply have sexual urges that they needed to give vent to.

    In a larger sense, it should raise a discussion about the power of sex within our lives, and whether it controls us - or we control it.

    More importantly, it should raise a question about how the government, in terms of policy and enforcement, should set its rules and limits on sexual conduct to help us control ourselves if you will.

    On one end of the spectrum, anti-polygamy laws were used to begin the dismantling of abuse fundamentalists LDS villages - but it was hard offenses of abuse that lead to harsh punishments. The lessons here being the power of sex to prevert, and the power of the government to end the preversion.

    Simply put, this one is not a open and shut case of right or wrong.
     
  7. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My sister in law is a lesbian. Her best friend in the entire world is a gay man. They got married the day after my wife and I did. You can't prevent people from abusing the system now. So why try when it means preventing actual committed gay couples from enjoying the benefits of the system that they rightfully deserve?
     
  8. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because that is not a true statement.

    Having been involved in policy making in several countries, it is exactly BECAUSE people abuse the system that you have to reform it.

    People taking advantage of the system are not good things, and they are not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that, when people discover a way to bilk the system, you change the system.

    For instance, what your lesbian sister is doing could ably be called fraud. They are not in a committed relationship at all are they? That is not a marriage, and it adds little of the benefits of a marriage while taking resources from the government.

    But, its two consenting adults, so we just HAVE to accept it do we?

    Do we see why many religious communities, indeed even a few atheists, are cautious about such a change? If we rationalize our morality for the sake of some government bennies? Who is wrong there?
     
  9. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In her case, my sister in law would happily be married to her partner if she could be. She married her gay best friend largely as a joke, but she has no reason to divorce him and end the "fraud." At least in her case, allowing gay marriage would prevent an abuse of the system.

    Furthermore, marriage is a civil contract between the two partners involved. The only "fraud" being committed in this relationship is the one done to each other. Government benefits that are awarded to married couples make no stipulation about fidelity. They only state that the couple must be married. These two are, so no fraud is being perpetrated on the government.
     
  10. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But Neutral... don't you see, that is what the entire argument is based on... the ability of those gay and lesbian folk to be able to receive benefits from the government.. it is not about rights, but rather about financial or other social benefits....
    "

    Archaic a kindly, charitable act; benefaction
    gain or advantage: tax legislation for the benefit of the rich
    a favorable or beneficial circumstance, condition, or result: several benefits to good nutrition
    fringe benefit
    payments made by an insurance company, public agency, welfare society, etc. as during sickness, retirement, unemployment, etc. or for death
    any public performance, bazaar, dance, etc. the proceeds of which are to help a certain person, group, or cause"

    They could truly care less about others (including that child which has been placed in their custody)... it is all about BENEFITS...
     
  11. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How?

    She made a commitment to a man, had the government sanction her decision - and its a joke? Why should such a person's views about marriage be treated with respect in the slightest?

    Its simple fraud. If she loves her partner, then she can do what any couple can do. She combine finances, she can establish legal trusts to ensure her partner is taken care of in the event of an accident, and she can even have some churches perform a marriage ceremony. All she then has to do is wait for the government to confirm her HONEST choice.

    That is not what she did, and dishonesty rationalized as a joke - the taking of government benefits through fraud - that is not a joke.

    This is exactly the kind of moral reletavism that many religious people see in the coming changes to marriage - and this is not good for our society that we take our relationships with such a casual disregard, both for the husband and partners in both those relationships.

    Now, they are both committing adultry to boot ...

    And this is 'good'? A joke?

    I am simply flabbergasted.

    Yep, between two people. There are four people, at least, in that marriage.

    In case you missed it, in a contextual shift, you should ask some people about what adultry means and does to people. Your sister and her 'husband' have taken one of the most destructive things in the world and turned it into a joke, apparently blissfully unaware that their relationship, build on fraud, now encompasses a litany of values that run at cross purposes to the very idea of marriage.

    If this is the level of commitment that we can expect with homosexuals in their marriages, then we have no business spending tax dollars on these things.

    Quite frankly, what you call a joke, others call fraud - and they are held accountable for it.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mar...ered-into-sham-marriages-to-collect-benefits/

    There is an honest way to effect change, and that is NOT it. Having done this, you undermine everything that actual committed partners are fighting for - tarnish their ACTUAL relationships with the brush of dishonesty and fraud, and now we have to ask - is your desire for marriage real? Or just a joke?

    Believe it or not, the same thing happens to heterosexual couples, who, when they marry for the intent of bilking the system, are also charged with fraud.

    Marriage is not about government benefits, and the benefits that flow are supposed to expand the BENEFICIAL aspects of marriage.
     
  12. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would be "good" for each of them to be able to marry their partners. But they can't. They didn't get married for the benefits, but they take advantage of them when possible (which is rare, they don't even live together). The government essentially treats same-sex relationships as a joke, denying them the same rights as a heterosexual relationship. So they return the sentiment. The marriage wasn't about effecting change. It was a joke, and I like to bring it up as an example of how things go awry when the government tries to regulate morality.

    The incident you posted is a violation of another contract, between the married couples and the military. They did expressly commit fraud. In contrast, should my sister in law wind up in the hospital, her husband has legal guarantees to see her because they're married. There is no law that can prevent or punish that simply because their marriage is a farce.

    The adultery matter is irrelevant. Their love is platonic. Their actions fit the letter of the definition of adultery, but not the spirit.

    Finally, whether a same-sex couple's desire for marriage is "real" or not is irrelevant. Rights aren't granted or protected based on the legitimacy of the actions of those who enjoy them. Hate is hardly a legitimate use for free expression, but it's protected nonetheless. The government provides protections for married couples. Denying those rights to some couples means unequal protection for them, which our government was designed to prevent.
     
  13. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1 - SO now we are defining government benefits, which do not even apply in most of the examples sited, are what defines what is 'good' and 'honorable'?

    The only benefot that this couple gets is joint tax filing, and perhaps halth coverage (which can be granted in many cases by simply taking on the partner as a dependant). And for that benefit, we have two people who lied. Who went and told the goverbment that we they are married - in a sham.

    That is cheapest bribe I have ever seen.

    #2 - you studiously avoided ANY alternative, while downplaying the sole reason for this marriage (benefits). There are homosexual couples who are striving to equality, in literal sense, in marriage. She COULD HAVE committed to her partner - she did not, and that is the reality of her decision.

    Indeed, what happens when, and if, gay marrige is legalized in her state? Does she dump her man like a dead cat? Or does she still need hi health coverage or the opposite? And as soon as its legalized, the expactation from this shame is that the marriage and its benefits quickly transfer to the newly eligible partner. I can almost guarantee that there is an aspect of the outsiders in the relationship that is equally dishonest - and someone in that chain of rationalization is going to wind up burned.

    Not too mention, what exactly are the irreconcilable differences that will drive the divorce? Lies beget lies.

    Do you understand what MARRIAGE is? Its not simply some legal benefit, is the ACTUAL commitment of two people to one another. People who watch your sister genuflect through a series of lies and trample over the institution of marriage are going to be aghast - and they should be. It is dishonest in its inception, dishonest to couple, dishonest to their partners, and dishonest to anyone who attempts to actually respect their 'marriage' It is a full tilt sham. And for what?

    Even homosexual couples, those striving for ACTUAL marriages, wil not be at all impressed with this sham.



    Not really. They were legally married. The benefits are given based solely on the legal marriage. They were, as I mentioned earlier, as your sister is, engaged in adultry (which IS a crime in the miitary - all actions regarding homosexual conduct are on hold pending the policy cahne which is effective in a few weeks).

    It is their intent that got them into trouble, and the difference in housing allowance that the four Marines drew is a few hundred dollars a month. Had they drawn at teh single rate and lived together?

    They chose farud instead - and will be held accountable for that decision.

    Just because you rationalize something does not make it right. Indeed, if you have freinds or even people you trust, they should be able to tell you these things when you go astray.

    So now we have rationalized adultry! We should no longer consider adultry a SIN? Because a couple of homosexuals want a few hundred dollars? :omfg:

    OK, so we can screw horses?

    Additionally, we aren't talking about 'expression', we are talking about marriage. The marriage is a fraud, there is no 'legitimacy' of the action. Its all one bog lie, for few pieces of silver.

    As simple as I can state this, either dishonesty is wrong or it is not. Take your pick. Your sister is not being honest - with a LOT of people. You will find that your reputation will open and close a great many doors for you as you make your journey through life.

    How do you think honorable people will respond to someone who is saying, "Yep I lied to screw the government out of few hundred buck a month, its a big joke though!"

    Oh, go ahead and stick her in accounting and make sure, as a nurse, she has unfettered access to expensive drugs with street value? Lets give her our most trusted clients too boot. Doors are closing for your sister because of this 'joke', and she has no one to blame but herself - its not intolerance of homosexuals driving this consequence.

    A few pieces of silver.
     
  14. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Definitions now have a 'spirit'? What is a 'spirit'? Of course I realize you are referencing something like "real meaning; true intention:"... Now, are you the author of such definition of adultery? No? Then how do you KNOW the 'spirit' of such definition? Did you imagine that 'true intention' or 'real meaning'? Did you have the author(s) of that definition give you his/her/their personal explanation of their intended 'meaning' or of its 'true intention'? No? Hmmmmm... just more of the speculation then that is so predominant on this forum.
     
  15. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The benefit they sought (and got) was getting to say "we can't marry our real partners, so we married each other. Isn't that funny, how we can marry each other on a whim but not the people we really are committed to?" Everything else they get as a result is incidental. Save your hyperbole and sanctimony for someone else.

    Did I say she didn't commit to her partner?

    If it's legalized, they get divorced and marry their partners.

    They're gay, and of opposite sex?

    From the government's stand point it is a legal benefit. The government sanctioned marriage contract only has as much or as little spiritual and moral meaning as the two individuals bring to it. The things you describe, like honesty and respect, are not required by the government to confer a marriage. In fact, the only thing the government requires (right now) is that the two parties be of the opposite sex, unmarried, and no closer in relation than first cousins.

    Was it their intent that got them in trouble? All I see is that they had a contract with the military saying they were married, and they committed adultery which then voided the contract.

    I didn't say that anything they did was right.

    In spirit, adultery and infidelity are both wrong for the same reason: there's an exclusivity to the relationship that is explicit or implies, and breaking that exclusivity is a breach of trust. Aside from the emotional component to infidelity, and the contractual component of marriage, the two are identical. In fact, the two terms are often, incorrectly, used interchangeably. In the case of my sister in law and her husband, there is no infidelity. They are physically and emotionally true to their partners, but simply bound in some ways by a government sanctioned contract. Yes, they are technically committing adultery, but the offense is meaningless in this scenario.

    The government says bestiality is a crime. If they said it was fine for your neighbor to screw a horse but not you, then there would be a problem. Whether anyone would fight for your right to screw a horse or not is another story.

    It's a lie for the shock and irony effect. And legitimacy of intent and action is still not a requirement for equal protection. Every protest that exercises a right without a true reason behind it is an illegitimate act (using your reasoning). My wife has no problem bringing a bottle of milk to a restaurant rather than breastfeeding our infant at the table. But if any restaurant denies a mother the right to do so, then my wife will be there along with dozens of other women to breastfeed at the establishment in protest. And that act is protected; adults and children can eat at a table in the restaurant, and therefore so can infants.

    Honesty really isn't part of this discussion. How honest my sister in law is really irrelevant as far as the government is concerned except in some very limited circumstances. She can't lie to the police or the IRS. But she can lie herself, her family, and a potential employer all she wants without the government punishing her. Her honesty has nothing to do with whether she should receive equal rights and protection under the law.
     
  16. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As shown in the emphasized points above, you are showing a primary interest in the subject of 'protection' under the law by the police. You really do need to study more about law and enforcement of laws before you go clamoring about 'police protection'.

    Here is an article that will start you on your way to discovering that you are among many millions of people who are operating under the delusion that the police are required to protect any one or all of you.
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
    I can also provide you with Supreme Court decisions that point out the same facts if you desire. So when you finish your little read/study session, you might have a little different perspective on what you think are your rights or the rights of others.
     
  17. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You continue to avoid so much as even acknowledging the alternatives available to your sister.

    #1 - if you sister would be happy to be married to her partner, why isn't she? They could travel to a state that does allow this, they can have a religious ceremony that sanctifies their partnership, they can even et up a legal action that grants many of the same benefits.

    In short, she chose to commit to a man, in a marraige, rather than her partner - and that is cruel joke for everyone involved.

    #2 - The decision to be dishonest is not rationalized because something is not yet legal. Her decision to marry a man has absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexual mariage. Its simple fraud.

    Dishonesty is either right or wrong. So please remember your sister the next time you find yourself needing to question someone else's integrity.

    Your sister was not 'forced' into a sham marriage.

    Except that each of the couple has another than they are ACTUALLY committed two. THis action, on its base, involves AT LEAST four people.

    Adultry ripes REAL marriages apart. FRAUD remains illegal - and immoral - do you understand that? Your sister is not married, she is drawing additional government benfots by DELIBERATELY misrepresenting her relationship status. She lied, and she is continuing to lie.

    So, if we are talking about legal changes, perhaps we should be changing the rules to eliminate fraud marriages that are about bilking the government rather than worrying about homosexual marriage, eh?

    Its all about benefits anyway? And that your sisters partner is left flpping out in the wind in the event your siter is hurt, denied hospital visitation, etc. Well, that'll make it an even funnier joke!
     
  18. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So all this debating going on and like i pointed out a long time back, the argument is not about equality, it's not about LOVE, it's purely about benefits, money and what can be gained or literally taken from the majority for the personal profit.


    Now can everyone see why i hate the homosexual marriage argument? It's a sham.

    it always has been
     
  19. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tell that directly to those who are promoters of such activity... probably most of the remainder of the people are already aware of that/those facts.
     
  20. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what if i changed the scope to suggest that religious wingnuts are even worse?

    And when i claim, the majority already know jesus aint 'the christ': most already know that
     
  21. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you just taking another tact with my post from this morning and ignoring the later line of debate? I really don't have time to waste on several posts only to have the other person pretend they didn't happen.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then I would extend the counter claim that you have no proof of your claim regarding 'religious wingnuts' : I was not aware of any 'wingnuts' that possessed the capacity of 'religion'. Are you taking drugs again or did you get exposed to too much EM?
     
  23. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Legal parity... as is their right to demand.
     
  24. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's about legal parity. It always has been.
     
  25. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i just quoted a post, that exposes a wingnut!
     

Share This Page