Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

Inkyfingers


Stop inserting strawmen.

It is not about whether it is 'natural' or not. Many things that are 'natural' are unhealthy. Dogs eating their own excrement is 'natural'.

It is about whether the nature OF life itself and the sexes is being stood against or not. Homosexuality is out of sync with both of those things. How can you call something normal when it stands agains the very nature of life itself and the sexes?

Again. Marriages licenses have nothing to do with standing against or standing with the nature of life and the sexes. They are pieces of paper that only have meaning within our civilized society - that has to do with taxes, estates, and other legal benefits. They are legal contracts. That's all they are. It is nonsensical to tell two consenting adults that they can't have this legal contract just because they could never procreate with each other.

kaylaluv

Inkyfingers


Stop inserting strawmen.

It is not about whether it is 'natural' or not. Many things that are 'natural' are unhealthy. Dogs eating their own excrement is 'natural'.

It is about whether the nature OF life itself and the sexes is being stood against or not. Homosexuality is out of sync with both of those things. How can you call something normal when it stands agains the very nature of life itself and the sexes?

Again. Marriages licenses have nothing to do with standing against or standing with the nature of life and the sexes. They are pieces of paper that only have meaning within our civilized society - that has to do with taxes, estates, and other legal benefits. They are legal contracts. That's all they are. It is nonsensical to tell two consenting adults that they can't have this legal contract just because they could never procreate with each other.

A marriage is categorically different from a civil partnership - which is why marriage always had to be consumated to be legitimate, and could be broken by adultery, whilst a civil partnership has no such requirements and limits.

Calling something then a marriage when it is based on a sexuality that is intrinsically unhealthy (because it stands against the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves) is a ludicrous idea.

There are many things that occur naturally and/or normally. Sadly, diseases and genetic disorders are naturally occurring.

Professional medical and psychological associations are in current agreement that homosexuality is not pathological in any way.

The argument that two things that are naturally occurring (e.g. homosexuality and sickle-cell) are somehow the same is a specious argument because the examples are cherry-picked. I can also compare homosexuality and 20/20 eyesight. Both occur naturally. Homosexuality and genetic resistance to certain diseases. Both occur naturally. Surely no one would argue with having 20/20 eyesight and disease resistance, right? However, it's still a specious argument.

The term "normal" technically has to do with the statistical incidence of a quality. Normal and natural are not synonymous.

Inkyfingers

kaylaluv

Inkyfingers


Stop inserting strawmen.

It is not about whether it is 'natural' or not. Many things that are 'natural' are unhealthy. Dogs eating their own excrement is 'natural'.

It is about whether the nature OF life itself and the sexes is being stood against or not. Homosexuality is out of sync with both of those things. How can you call something normal when it stands agains the very nature of life itself and the sexes?

Again. Marriages licenses have nothing to do with standing against or standing with the nature of life and the sexes. They are pieces of paper that only have meaning within our civilized society - that has to do with taxes, estates, and other legal benefits. They are legal contracts. That's all they are. It is nonsensical to tell two consenting adults that they can't have this legal contract just because they could never procreate with each other.

A marriage is categorically different from a civil partnership - which is why marriage always had to be consumated to be legitimate, and could be broken by adultery, whilst a civil partnership has no such requirements and limits.

Calling something then a marriage when it is based on a sexuality that is intrinsically unhealthy (because it stands against the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves) is a ludicrous idea.

Why is it so important that all marriages stand with the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves? How is it harmful if 2% of marriages stand against the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves, as you so humorously put it. Will it tear through the fabric of time and space if only 98% of marriages stand with the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves?

Isn't it intrinsically unhealthy for a 20 year old man to marry a 94 year old woman for her money? What about those marriages? Those types of intrinsically unhealthy marriages exist. Has our world come to an end because they exist?

What are you so afraid of?

reply to post by Inkyfingers

Having read your posts you tend to not read all of mine, and take such out of context so let’s play in your field for a moment:

You mention that laws have been made and undone before. Yet fail to mention that the legislatures do not often undo laws; rather they leave it to the courts to act before they take action. In these days it is rare to see a legislative body undo any laws that it has passed, rather it takes an act of court, and many millions of dollars for a legislative body to do the job that it was elected to do. And often it does it poorly where the courts have to get involved, giving neither intelligence nor its full industry or speaking for their entire constituency.

You state that you have shown that it non-heterosexuality runs contrary to the nature of life and sexes, yet fail to take into account those who choose not to have spouses, remaining single or living alone and away from the rest of the population. Does that also not run contrary to the nature or life and the sexes?

Yes I do understand that words such as nature have multiple meanings, and perhaps we should be defining the terms, rather than using them in such a broad and vague terms as such.

I am not ignoring it; I am merely adding a new dimension to the discussion, taking it beyond what you are wanting it to go. Adding in a point in the argument that you did not bring up and are showing that you are not wanting to discuss. The reality is this, we do not know what causes some people to prefer the same sex, let along what causes some to choose one type of person over another. The science of attraction tends to be relatively new, and is only just now being looked at. It covers a far broader points than this discussion has begun to scratch. After all what if someone told you that you could not marry a woman who was of a particular ancestry or had a trait that you found appealing, would you be happy about such? What if you could only marry those with the same traits as you have, and not someone opposite of what you have?

A blog is not valid proof, it does not hold up to peer review or can be used in any scientific or legal argument. If you want to provide such as supporting argument, that is fine, but in the face of valid scientific and legal documentation, it tends to fall apart. And the very blog that you provided reeks of the pulpit, the very nature of the different topics that the blog provides shows a strong religious influence and an attempts to enforce an ideology on a group of people, thus invalidating the entire blog as a valid proof for this kind of debate and discussion. Not all of us are of the Judaic beliefs, and thus the entire lets impose morality on every one is not a good way.
This is a topic of law and of civil rights. Ultimately there is no real legal argument out there that could be made to deny same sex marriage. Every time it has been tried, it fails in court, as those who are against such, tend to try to enforce their version of a theological argument on the courts and it never flies past judicial review.

Gryphon66
There are many things that occur naturally and/or normally. Sadly, diseases and genetic disorders are naturally occurring.

Professional medical and psychological associations are in current agreement that homosexuality is not pathological in any way.

The argument that two things that are naturally occurring (e.g. homosexuality and sickle-cell) are somehow the same is a specious argument because the examples are cherry-picked. I can also compare homosexuality and 20/20 eyesight. Both occur naturally. Homosexuality and genetic resistance to certain diseases. Both occur naturally. Surely no one would argue with having 20/20 eyesight and disease resistance, right? However, it's still a specious argument.

The term "normal" technically has to do with the statistical incidence of a quality. Normal and natural are not synonymous.

edit on 11Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:06:38 -060014p112014166 by Gryphon66 because: Stuff.

I have not relied on calling things "Natural" at any point. That is what others have claimed I have said.

Perhaps if people read what I put, rather than reacted from an ideological position that they defend as a reflex, I would not have to keep pointing that out (and we could all be saved a lot of time).

kaylaluv

Inkyfingers

kaylaluv

Inkyfingers


Stop inserting strawmen.

It is not about whether it is 'natural' or not. Many things that are 'natural' are unhealthy. Dogs eating their own excrement is 'natural'.

It is about whether the nature OF life itself and the sexes is being stood against or not. Homosexuality is out of sync with both of those things. How can you call something normal when it stands agains the very nature of life itself and the sexes?

Again. Marriages licenses have nothing to do with standing against or standing with the nature of life and the sexes. They are pieces of paper that only have meaning within our civilized society - that has to do with taxes, estates, and other legal benefits. They are legal contracts. That's all they are. It is nonsensical to tell two consenting adults that they can't have this legal contract just because they could never procreate with each other.

A marriage is categorically different from a civil partnership - which is why marriage always had to be consumated to be legitimate, and could be broken by adultery, whilst a civil partnership has no such requirements and limits.

Calling something then a marriage when it is based on a sexuality that is intrinsically unhealthy (because it stands against the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves) is a ludicrous idea.

Why is it so important that all marriages stand with the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves? How is it harmful if 2% of marriages stand against the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves, as you so humorously put it. Will it tear through the fabric of time and space if only 98% of marriages stand with the nature of life itself and the sexes themselves?

Isn't it intrinsically unhealthy for a 20 year old man to marry a 94 year old woman for her money? What about those marriages? Those types of intrinsically unhealthy marriages exist. Has our world come to an end because they exist?

What are you so afraid of?

When you are required by law to treat as normal and healthy something which is not remotely normal or healthy, that carries an inherent danger.

I'm not targeting specific marriages, which is not something we should police (as it would amount to every marriage requiring official investigation and permission) but the general category of marriage itself (which should not inherently include any abnormal or unhealthy matter under the label of normal and healthy).

reply to post by kaylaluv


I don't think the 94 year old woman would mind.

All of this discussion is well and good, but, everyone, legally gay marriage is coming to a home near you. Like it, dislike it, hate it, or participate in it, there will be gay marriage in your town and after a little while you won't even give it a second thought. Remember, legal segregation in the U.S. was the standard that blacks and whites accepted and lived with until the civil rights movement came along. Now 50 years later the laws discriminating against shades of skin sound literally crazy ("Ah, are you saying I can't drink from that public water fountain? Say what?"). The anti-gay marriage folks will take it personally, but when they see a long-time friend coming out and marrying, it will change their worldview a bit.

sdcigarpig

You state that you have shown that it non-heterosexuality runs contrary to the nature of life and sexes, yet fail to take into account those who choose not to have spouses, remaining single or living alone and away from the rest of the population. Does that also not run contrary to the nature or life and the sexes?

Yes, that too runs contrary life (but not to the sexes, as they are not engaged in sexual activity).

Such is also not a sign of health.

Edited to add: actually, no, it is contrary to the sexes as well because it denies the purpose of them.

Yes I do understand that words such as nature have multiple meanings, and perhaps we should be defining the terms, rather than using them in such a broad and vague terms as such.

I have not used them in "broad and vague" ways. When I say "the nature of life and the sexes" I am clearly not refering to Nature (with a capital N) but rather the intrinsic character of those things.

what if someone told you that you could not marry a woman who was of a particular ancestry or had a trait that you found appealing, would you be happy about such? What if you could only marry those with the same traits as you have, and not someone opposite of what you have?

That would be a political matter, not a biological one.

A political matter may say that (for example) a black person is inferior. Clearly they are not. The differences are not structural to who and what they are.

Saying that homosexuality is neither normal or healthy is not a political matter though. It is addressing homosexuality being in its very nature at odds with the nature of life itself and of the sexes....which are at the core of human existence rather than just minor environmental adaptive qualities.

A blog is not valid proof,

Indeed.

The soundness of the argument is valid proof.

Whether it is a blog, a book or a scientific peer-reviewed journal makes do difference to whether something is valid proof of something.

Inkyfingers


When you are required by law to treat as normal and healthy something which is not remotely normal or healthy, that carries an inherent danger.

What exactly is the inherent danger?

I'm not targeting specific marriages, which is not something we should police (as it would amount to every marriage requiring official investigation and permission) but the general category of marriage itself (which should not inherently include any abnormal or unhealthy matter under the label of normal and healthy).

Oh, so you're okay with a small percentages of marriages not being intrinsically healthy, as long as they involve heterosexuals.

Gotcha.

kaylaluv

Inkyfingers


When you are required by law to treat as normal and healthy something which is not remotely normal or healthy, that carries an inherent danger.

What exactly is the inherent danger?

I'm not targeting specific marriages, which is not something we should police (as it would amount to every marriage requiring official investigation and permission) but the general category of marriage itself (which should not inherently include any abnormal or unhealthy matter under the label of normal and healthy).

Oh, so you're okay with a small percentages of marriages not being intrinsically healthy, as long as they involve heterosexuals.

Gotcha.

No, I'm not okay with redefining marriage to explicitly accept the unhealthy (and require that we accept it).

If people realised that homosexuality is neither normal nor healthy, there would be no demand to change the definition of marriage to include it.

And if you cannot see the inherent danger of requiring in law that we treat the abnormal and unhealthy as normal and healthy, I'd suggest less time online and more time actually thinking about what you are saying.

I remember talking with my daughter a couple of years ago, when she was studying the invention of flight. I told her that there were groups of people who were very much against air travel. They said that we were going against nature by doing this, and bad things were going to happen as a result. The old, "If God had intended us to fly, he would have made us born with wings" argument. She thought that was pretty funny.

When the ban on interracial marriages was being contested, there were groups of people who thought that interracial marriage was going against the natural order of things. One judge was even quoted as saying that God put different colored people on different continents in order to keep us separate.

We are going through some growing pains right now with including homosexuals in our society and civil structure. As is always the case with progress, there will be groups of people who are against it for whatever reason (fear, prejudice, etc.). Rest assured, progress will happen, and the world will not end because of gay marriage. I promise.

reply to post by Inkyfingers

But now you are assigning a value to something that should not be assigned value in the first place. Are you stating that one sex has a greater role in society than the other or should hold more legal weight than the other? You agree that those who would willing choose to forgo having sex, thus runs contrary to the nature of such is somehow wrong.

Are you saying that say a nun or a monk, those who have forsworn having sex is wrong somehow, inferior to others or is morally inept? That very nature of theirs, and that the majority of the world seems to think that they hold the moral high ground by forgoing a baser instinct and pleasures of the flesh puts them on a different footing.

You state that when you say, “the nature of life and sexes” you are clearly not referring to Nature (with a capital N) but rather the intrinsic character of those things. Yet fail to see that it is in that very character of things that is encompassed in Nature. It is a proven fact that in nature, that animals of both sexes do engage in sex, and have offspring, that very few are often monogamous, rather having different partners as is the point of evolution and the survival of the fittest. It is also been shown and demonstrated that it is only the human species that enjoys the activity of sex, not as a means to procreate, but that of just having sex, where many other species tend to not do such.

You agree that if you were told you could not marry someone due to a trait would be a political matter, yet fail to see that the entire same sex issue is just that a political matter, all other aspects borderline that of the religious. And as we are not all of the same belief and religion, then it has to fall within the realm of laws, not theology.

And the difference between a blog and something that is peer reviewed, is that with a book or article that is peer reviewed, is that it is more than just one person making the decision and it up for review by others in that field. And can either be duplicated and agreed on, or shown errors and counter proposals given. Without that review of experts, no matter how sound the argument, or the blog, it would fail in a court of law, as the evidence holds no weight, thus taking the entire argument with it. Even a judge when issuing a ruling has to back it up with precedent to validate his ruling, giving cases to justify his decision in writing. If he says he thinks that the verdict should be one thing or another and does not give a precedents on such, the entire verdict is invalid.

Why does conversations such as this always go to "Normal and Not Normal" we can debate this for eons, with the Heterosexuals claiming knowledge of "Why" we are Gay, this debate doesn't matter if it's natural, or normal, or unnatural. this is about Marriage and Rights equally for everyone as Humans

in the end it always comes down to Sex and people claiming they know what "Nature" or "God" intends for everyone, someone can give a report that says scientifically homosexuals are born that way due to genetics etc, someone can come and say that is Liberal propaganda and one sided and show a report that says the opposite and claim that it not propaganda or one sided.

on one side you have people who want it so bad to be Unnatural, and a "Choice" and to be "Right" that we don't deserve equal treatment because we selected to be "Unnatural"

why? why is that important, we are Humans trying to survive and thrive in this short life, if you don't "agree" with homosexuals, fine you have your freedoms that i would always defend, but why this constant shoving in our face Religion, and "Facts" that prove we are Unnatural?


Let it be

I have been out of the debate since last night. Has nobody reached an epiphany yet ?

Christian Voice
I have been out of the debate since last night. Has nobody reached an epiphany yet ?

We've been fighting like dogs, wrestling like squirrels, and tossing caution to the wind. Besides that, no.

So far it would seem that the PRO same-sex marriage folks want to focus on marriage as a legal right available to any citizen.

The CON side is stating that since homosexuals are unnatural, non-breeding, and likely immoral that there's no problem with discriminating against them.

That's a summary of the past 20 posts or so.

I read this a bit ago and thought it applies to this discussion so I'll throw it out here. Not a pro or con but rather a side note to the discussion:
abcnews.go.com...

Inkyfingers

kaylaluv

Inkyfingers


When you are required by law to treat as normal and healthy something which is not remotely normal or healthy, that carries an inherent danger.

What exactly is the inherent danger?

I'm not targeting specific marriages, which is not something we should police (as it would amount to every marriage requiring official investigation and permission) but the general category of marriage itself (which should not inherently include any abnormal or unhealthy matter under the label of normal and healthy).

Oh, so you're okay with a small percentages of marriages not being intrinsically healthy, as long as they involve heterosexuals.

Gotcha.

No, I'm not okay with redefining marriage to explicitly accept the unhealthy (and require that we accept it).

If people realised that homosexuality is neither normal nor healthy, there would be no demand to change the definition of marriage to include it.

And if you cannot see the inherent danger of requiring in law that we treat the abnormal and unhealthy as normal and healthy, I'd suggest less time online and more time actually thinking about what you are saying.

1. You've provided no proof that homosexuality is unhealthy (probably because there isn't any); as for it being normal, yes that's true depending on which definition of normal you're using.
2. Not being normal or healthy (even if the latter were true) isn't a valid argument against gay marriage, legally or logically.


Regarding the last remark, I'd suggest practicing what you preach because you've been consistently making stupid posts in this thread.

reply to post by Inkyfingers

Having re-read through many of your postings on this issue and topic, and looking at the terms that you are using, there are a few more things that can be stated, that many would probably after doing a bit of research may or may not agree with.

Marriage is no longer within the realm of the religious, as it has been in the past, and is now more in the realm of the state control. If you look at most legal definitions when it comes to marriage it is not marriage, but a marriage contract. That would implicate it no longer being a part of the body religious, but rather to the estate of the body politic. It is taxed, and defined, requires a license, and in most cases the laws are set out to define the rights there in and after said contract has ended. In fact it was during the case in 1878, that the legal precedent was set out but the Supreme Court of the USA, where it took marriage away from the religious side of life and set it to the state and the political to decide what was legal and not legal in a marriage.

And in many cases there were very specific guidelines that had to be fulfilled to determine if the marriage was going to be valid or not. In some cases if one of the persons had an STD, or failed the blood test, then they would be forbidden by law to marry. And every state has its own criteria as to who may or may not get married, and how divorces may or may not proceed, including prescribing what happens after said marriage contract is annulled.

So as this is no longer with in the religious realm and now in the legal aspect, definitions due tend to change from time to time as is determined by the state and the courts during the day and age.

But back to your statements on homosexuality is neither normal nor healthy. Something about it did not set well with me, as I have heard that kind of rhetoric and statements before. And after a bit of research, looking back in history at such rhetoric and said statements the following can be stated:

That kind of rhetoric is not new, and has been around for years, going back thousands of years to often describe a segment of society that one group desired to get rid of. The Romans used it against the Christians, during the dark ages with the spreading of many plagues, it was used to demonize and justify violence against one group or another. The Nazi, the USSR under Stalin, even Mao, all used this to describe segments of the population that they found undesirable, and sought to justify either imprisoning or killing all in the name of protecting the masses. Even the USA used it against different groups of immigrants, and especially during the civil rights movements, where such terms were used, to describe the African American population, even when it came to biracial marriage and weddings.