I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

reply to post by DRAZIW

How do you know the animal cannot give informed consent? Did the animal run away. Did it bark or complain? Many animals have lots of intelligence. You call a dog, it comes. You tell it to fetch, it goes fetch.

Informed consent means really informed. No animal approaches the intelligence of a 14-18 year old human, which is where the line is usualy drawn in law. That said, the level of protection for animals is lower than for humans, thus I can imagine that much less informed consent could be required for bestiality.

How do you know the animal cannot give informed consent? Did the animal run away. Did it bark or complain? Many animals have lots of intelligence. You call a dog, it comes. You tell it to fetch, it goes fetch. If the animal comes back for more love, then isn't that consent enough? What do you want from the animal? Paw prints?

Yes, if I was going to screw my dog I would want paw prints as consent. I would also want to spend over 200$ on date nights at expensive resturants before our first time and all the other things that go alon with relationships.

Exactly, we have free will. You can choose. But, you can't call it all the same thing.

Actually... You can. *facepalm*

Don't need to assess the people, only the "action". The people are different, they are individuals.
BUT, THEIR ACTION IS ALL THE SAME.
Not hard to figure that out.

And what action would that be? If you even begin to say gay sex I might have to freak out. Just a tad.

The only misinformed, are those who don't understand what their private jewels are really there for.
They think it's for "recreation."

I know full well what its there for, just as I know that the bible is not supposed to be used as a weapon of hate, I know my testicals are supposed to be used to impregnate a woman. OH WELL. DEAL WITH IT. WHAT I DO WITH MY BODY IS MY PROBLEM.

Originally posted by Maslo

Informed consent means really informed. No animal approaches the intelligence of a 14-18 year old human, which is where the line is usualy drawn in law. That said, the level of protection for animals is lower than for humans, thus I can imagine that much less informed consent could be required for bestiality.

Remember, we "slaughter" animals for food. And that's got to be alot worse for the animal, than a little "love" shown by a lustful human.

Originally posted by spw184

I know full well what its there for, just as I know that the bible is not supposed to be used as a weapon of hate, I know my testicals are supposed to be used to impregnate a woman. OH WELL. DEAL WITH IT. WHAT I DO WITH MY BODY IS MY PROBLEM.

I agree with you 100%. It's your problem. But, we who know the solutions to problems are obligated to mention those solutions, so that those that "care about themselves" can find an alternate path.

We don't try to "make" anyone do anything. God didn't force people to accept his word. He just directed that the word be put down in a book, and directed that people make it known that "the book exists." Then, when the individual is "ready", he himself will start to read. At that time, God will notice him making the effort, and God will grant him the wisdom to understand the words of the book. That's how the solution works.

There's no hate.

There's love, and alot of patient waiting. But, that love is nothing like lust.

If you notice,"lust" is "pushing and pulling."

Lust is composed of two opposite actions.

LUST = LOVE + HATE

On the one hand you pull your partner towards you, that's love. On the other hand, you push your partner away from you, that's hate.

Once you think deeply about the "action" involved , you will understand the design, and things will begin to make sense to you.

agree with you 100%. It's your problem. But, we who know the solutions to problems are obligated to mention those solutions, so that those that "care about themselves" can find an alternate path.

And whats your solution? Also, where is there proof that homoseuxality is bad? ( the bible does not count)

On the one hand you pull your partner towards you, that's love. On the other hand, you push your partner away from you, that's hate.

The only pushing and pulling we do is in bed. 'Nuff said

Once you think deeply about the "action" involved , you will understand the design, and things will begin to make sense to you.

You sound like a "The peices dont fit" sort of guy, are you?

Great post OP. I am a heterosexual female and I completely concur.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Great post OP. I am a heterosexual female and I completely concur.

Please aphrodite, take off your shoes and stay a while.

reply to post by spw184


Thank you, don't mind if I do. Sending some love back your way.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by spw184

 

Thank you, don't mind if I do. Sending some love back your way.

reply to post by DRAZIW

I don't know if it's bad or good. It's bad for me. But, who am I to judge whether its bad for someone else?

I hate all this faux modesty. Who are you? You're the person who says they are 'certain' of their god, what it wants and what will become of us all. If you 'know' all these things as you claim then you have every right to make an assertion- the fact that you don't contaminates how certain you claim to be of these things.

This makes my point perfectly:

It's not the same thing. Each type of "love" is different, and ought to be labeled differently.

But, then again, communists didn't believe in God. So, it figures.

Blimey, what gung- ho ignorance. Yes, Marxism very much considers religion to be a bad thing in society- that 1. is not the same as communism, 2. communism as a political position is not past tense and 3. I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions, of communists who did/ do believe in a god.

How do you know the animal cannot give informed consent? Did the animal run away. Did it bark or complain? Many animals have lots of intelligence. You call a dog, it comes. You tell it to fetch, it goes fetch. If the animal comes back for more love, then isn't that consent enough? What do you want from the animal? Paw prints?

I'd say it cannot give informed consent as we cannot be sure of it's self- awareness and therefore cannot be sure of it fully understanding the situation as (most) humans might. Would you think the same if it were a severely disabled person? As that would involve a similiar problem.

But, you can't call it all the same thing.

Can't call what the same thing? Hetero and homo- sexuality? Chemical reactions in the brain would likely be very much the same.

BUT, THEIR ACTION IS ALL THE SAME.

Sorry? No, it isn't. Many gay men don't have anal sex at all. Some are celibate. Some believe they are sinful and try to 'cure' themselves. Some have as much sex as they possibly can. What are the actions which are all the same? What about cultures where men kiss to greet? Is that the same?

The only misinformed, are those who don't understand what their private jewels are really there for. They think it's for "recreation."

Incredible. You are telling others what they are to do with their genitals. They are hardly 'jewels' under your "lust is pure sin" take. I have rebuffed this 'unnatural' rubbish several times already.
You could also state that we never requested these genitals so how can we be given strict rules after being given them- that is tyranny.

To marry is to be blessed by God, and to become one flesh. Only man+woman can do that !

I have said for a long time that gay people should not be married in a Christian church/ mosque/ temple etc. but should be able to legally anywhere else. It is quite explicit that these religions do not endorse homosexuality so why subscribe to that cult's practices? They shouldn't even consider that they need the blessings of these people.

Remember, we "slaughter" animals for food. And that's got to be alot worse for the animal, than a little "love" shown by a lustful human.

For someone so saturated in religiosity you seem to be almost encouraging both beastiality and rape....Not to mention moral relativism.

reply to post by yes4141


Dont worry yes, we all know that he doublebacks on things he says.

reply to post by The Old American


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so my comment is not whether you should or shouldn't be in favor of changing Civil Union/Domestic Partners to Marriage.

My comment is to your reasoning. I read what you wrote and to be honest it came across to me to be the stereotypical bigoted reason we hear gay activists lay claim too. The first thought that came to my mind, is this guy for real or is he a plant?

Ultimately I concluded that it really didn't matter, because I believe you are right as much as you are wrong. First off, one does not have to be against changing Civil Union/Domestic Partners to Marriage for religious reasons or bigoted reasons such as you expressed in your posting.

You really hit on the crucial point, that under the law marriage is in-fact nothing more than a contract, just as Civil Unions and Domestic Partners are.

The simple fact is, the notion that calling the contract between homosexuals marriage or civil unions/domestic partnerships has nothing to do with equal rights anymore than calling the sport football, football and baseball, baseball. These are words to describe something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, unequal or discriminatory to have different terminology for different kinds of relationship contracts. Discrimination would only exist if under the law, they were not treated the same.

Now I am not an expert on this topic to know whether or not there exists inequities, my opinion on the matter is solely based on the fact that this has never been apart of the debate (inequities between the two types of contracts).

The debate has centered around the use of the word marriage, while framing the debate in the false notion of equality, since homosexuals have a relationship contracts that grant them contract rights, that are just as valid under the law as marriage.

All this being stated, my issue with changing Marriage to include Civil Union/Domestic Partnership is the fact that the word/term Marriage has it's origins in religion. To be clear, I am not talking about the union of two people, I am referring to the word marriage.

Marriage appeared in human history during the old testament period in Jews history. Marriage is apart of a religious practice, rite with religious implications. Marriage as defined by religion, explains a relationship between a man and a woman before God.

So my issue with changing the word Marriage to include gay unions is that what is really being asked is for the government to change religious terminology of a religious rite!

My perspective of this is no. I belief that this violates the separation clause of the government's authority under the constitution.

If it is in-fact the agenda of gay activists, that all relationships should have have one terminology to define the civil contract between individual, I would argue that it makes more sense to change the legal contract word Marriage to be Civil Union and/or Domestic Partners. Not the other way around.