Same sex marraige resumes in California

[zsdersw]

I don't see a problem with monogamy. I am unaware of a rule that says humans have to be with multiple partners. Any animal can procreate multiple times with one partner, or many partners. Monogamy seems to be irrelevant in that sense.

How many people have only been with one person in their life, anyways? Does that actually happen?

There's no rule about having multiple partners, but that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying there's no rule in nature that humans must have only one partner. In most of the animal kingdom.. of which we are a part.. monogamy is very rare.

 

[Vaux]

By what measure do you determine it to be "unnatural" and "inappropriate"?

By the measure that humans of the same sex are not made to come together as one. That is just not how the human species is supposed to operate. If it was, then humans would become extinct, which goes against the most important natural instinct; survival. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

[Vaux]

There's no rule about having multiple partners, but that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying there's no rule in nature that humans must have only one partner. In most of the animal kingdom.. of which we are a part.. monogamy is very rare.

Ok, fine. In humans, monogamy is very rare also. I don't know anyone that hasn't been with multiple partners. Do you?

 

[zsdersw]

By the measure that humans of the same sex are not made to come together as one. That is just not how the human species is supposed to operate. If it was, then humans would become extinct, which goes against the most important natural instinct; survival. That should tell you all you need to know.

You seem to be conflating "natural" with "common". Homosexuality and homosexual sex is perfectly natural but it is not at all common.

Not everything that is natural is common, and not everything that is common is natural. "Supposed to" is a judgement made by man.. not nature.

It has existed in humanity and elsewhere in the animal kingdom throughout the history of history. It has always existed in nature and humanity as a persistent minority. If you think evolution and natural selection are the engines of human development, then surely the rare yet durable and persistent minority condition called "homosexuality" and homosexual sex is evidence that it is not a trait or characteristic that hinders the species.

 

[zsdersw]

Ok, fine. In humans, monogamy is very rare also. I don't know anyone that hasn't been with multiple partners. Do you?

You appear to have a very keen ability to miss the point. This whole part of the conversation is about the concept of how things should be or how they're meant to be... and what I was saying was that one of the things often said by people is that monogamy is how it should be. See various religious organizations for an avalanche of examples.

 

[Vaux]

You seem to be conflating "natural" with "common". Homosexuality and homosexual sex is perfectly natural but it is not at all common.

I am not doing that at all. It is not perfectly natural, humans aren't made for homosexual relationships.

"Supposed to" is a judgement made by man.. not nature.

Are men supposed to bear children? Did I make that judgement, or did nature? Once again, it is not me telling you what is right.

It has existed in humanity and elsewhere in the animal kingdom throughout the history of history. It has always existed in nature and humanity as a persistent minority.

That is true, it has. So have many other birth defects. Animals are born with unnatural things all the time. People are born with 3 arms, or birds are born with 2 beaks, you are going to tell me that is how it is supposed to be? It's natural, only in the fact that it is natural for nature to make mistakes.

If you think evolution and natural selection are the engines of human development, then surely the rare yet durable and persistent minority condition called "homosexuality" and homosexual sex is evidence that it is not a trait or characteristic that hinders the species.

Well using that logic, suicide isn't a trait that hinders the species, either. But it's not right, and it's not how it's supposed to be. My point still stands.

 

[Vaux]

You appear to have a very keen ability to miss the point. This whole part of the conversation is about the concept of how things should be or how they're meant to be... and what I was saying was that one of the things often said by people is that monogamy is how it should be. See various religious organizations for an avalanche of examples.

I see. Well I am not one of those people. And I don't believe in any religion.

 

[zsdersw]

I am not doing that at all. It is not perfectly natural, humans aren't made for homosexual relationships.

Whoa whoa, who said anything about relationships? I was referring to homosexual sex, but if you want to talk about relationships... again, why aren't humans made for homosexual relationships?

Are men supposed to bear children? Did I make that judgement, or did nature? Once again, it is not be telling you what is right.

Why is bearing children relevant? Nature does not at all tell us that homosexual sex isn't "right".

That is true, it has. So have many other birth defects. Animals are born with unnatural things all the time. People are born with 3 arms, or birds are born with 2 beaks, you are going to tell me that is how it is supposed to be? It's natural, only in the fact that it is natural for nature to make mistakes.

Homosexuality is not a birth defect. It is abnormal, but it is not a defect. Biologically, homosexuals are not any more or less capable as human beings than heterosexuals. Extra limbs or other deformities hinder survival in animals, which is a defect. Homosexuality does not at all hinder the survival of humans or other animals.

Well using that logic, suicide isn't a trait that hinders the species, either. But it's not right, and it's not how it's supposed to be. My point still stands.

No, your point never stood. Whether or not suicide is "right" or "how its supposed to be" is a human judgement call, not nature.

 

[Vaux]

Whoa whoa, who said anything about relationships? I was referring to homosexual sex, but if you want to talk about relationships... again, why aren't humans made for it?

I was referring to sex, which is part of a relationship.

Why is bearing children relevant? Nature does not at all tell us that homosexual sex isn't "right".

Bearing children is relevant because it's a biology issue. People of the same sex are not made to come together as one, which is a biology issue. And both were not decided by me. It seems to be you who is keen on missing points this time.

Homosexuality is not a birth defect. It is abnormal, but it is not a defect.

It certainly is a defect. Anything that is born not to procreate has a defect. Procreation is a vital part of life. You would not exist without it.

No, your point never stood. Whether or not suicide is "right" or "how its supposed to be" is a human judgement call, not nature.

It is not my judgement. I did not create the species. I am unsure of why you cannot recognize basic fundamentals of life.

 

[randomrogue]

This is over one word... "homosexuality"... a word coined in the 19th Century, but same sex, sex had been around even before Alexander The Great's time being alive here on Earth.

This argument is probably based on the premise that God didn't inspire Bible writers and provide them information not "intelligible" had they been on their own, so sure, if that is the case, then historical context matters.

But same sex relationships are stated three separate times in Scripture as condemned (Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6).

The "science" behind why same-sex, sex is condemned or not (according to your link) in the Bible doesn't matter, its all about the "act", or "behavior".

Why? Well, because ex-"homosexuals" (those who no longer have same sex, sex, or date same sex persons among other changes people made) have changed as evident in 1 Cor 6:11 where Paul says "this is what you once were".

So, the behavior is the important thing, and that's the point being made, because bad behaviors can cease.

Let me preface this by saying your relying on the bible, new testament and old alike, is not an acceptable excuse for bigotry. The bible is filled with all kinds of hate and horrible things and we do not follow biblical law in this country. If you rely on the bible and only the bible for your morality you're going to be a horrible person. I'm also not the most familiar with how the church reconciled the differences between the new and old bible but if I'm not mistaken jesus was not against the laws of the old testament. He mentions this in Matthew.

However I'd like to add that you're being a hypocrite by picking and choosing what you want to believe in and what you want to follow.

Leviticus is in the old testament. Romans and Corinthians is in the new.

This is probably a decent read for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

 

[busydude]

Vaux, what about heterosexual couples who can't give birth? You can't seem to understand that there is no purpose to life. Just like there is no right way for one species to evolve. Homosexuals make up only 2% of the entire population and their behavior does not effect the behavior of others. Our earth is overpopulated anyway.. and there is no shortage of children who are in desperate need of a responsible adult.

 

[zsdersw]

I was referring to sex, which is part of a relationship.

Only in humans and a few other animal species.

Bearing children is relevant because it's a biology issue. People of the same sex are not made to come together as one, which is a biology issue. And both were not decided by me. It seems to be you who is keen on missing points this time.

Made to come together as one? You mean ejaculate at the same time? If you meant not made to have sex, well, then I guess blowjobs are not meant to be, either.

It certainly is a defect. Anything that is born not to procreate has a defect. Procreaion is a vital part of life. You would not exist without it.

Homosexuals can indeed procreate and the biology of how it happens is no different than it is with heterosexuals, even if the way the sperm got to the egg is different.

Aside from procreation, though, humans are one of a very small handful of animal species (all of which are highly intelligent) that has sex purely for pleasure instead of purely because of a mating instinct. This ability could have evolved as some byproduct of our intelligence or be directly caused by it. Either way, we've got it. Nature seems to be telling us that procreation is not the only reason for sex.

It is not my judgement. I did not create the species. I am unsure of why you cannot recognize basic fundamentals of life.

Of course it is your judgement. From an evolutionary and nature perspective, all of the evidence points to homosexuality being as benign as being left-handed.

 

[randomrogue]

There was an article somewhere yesterday that said the cost of IVF has dropped down to like $250 from the thousands it used to be.

Conceiving a child is just getting easier and cheaper.

 

[nehalem256]

Vaux, what about heterosexual couples who can't give birth? You can't seem to understand that there is no purpose to life. Just like there is no right way for one species to evolve. Homosexuals make up only 2% of the entire population and their behavior does not effect the behavior of others.

But turning marriage into a meaningless contract to get government benefits does.

Our earth is overpopulated anyway.. and there is no shortage of children who are in desperate need of a responsible adult.

And how many of those children were born to a married heterosexual couple?

 

[randomrogue]

Married couples became a minority in 2005. It's dropping. It's just a contract and divorce rates are sky high so it really isn't that great of a deal anyways. This thread is about denying one group their rights because of their sexual orientation.

 

[busydude]

But turning marriage into a meaningless contract to get government benefits does.



And how many of those children were born to a married heterosexual couple?

Marrying to avail government benefits isn't meaningless at all. The laws made by the government of US doesn't conform to any religion. By law, every marriage has equal status regardless of a person's religious affiliation. That said, I am of a opinion that the practice of providing incentives for married/cohabitant couples is pretty stupid. I'd be happier if the government eliminates tax breaks for couples. That said, what many people are fighting for here is the way homosexual couples are treated if the land doesn't validate their marriage - it becomes a human rights issue rather than a financial one.

 

[Retro Rob]

The bible is filled with all kinds of hate and horrible things and we do not follow biblical law in this country

.

I never said we follow "Biblical Law" anyway. We don't, and never have... never will.

If you rely on the bible and only the bible for your morality you're going to be a horrible person. I'm also not the most familiar with how the church reconciled the differences between the new and old bible but if I'm not mistaken jesus was not against the laws of the old testament. He mentions this in Matthew.

Again, the "Church" didn't reconcile the differences between the OT and the NT. This was done shortly after Jesus' death back before organized religon was anywhere near established.

He said he wasn't here to break the law, but to fulfill it. This was "fulfilled" at his death. Ask yourself, what is the only way to complete a contract between you and someone else? By doing all the work assigned and agreed to, and then you're out of the contract -- you don't stay permenately bound to it... even when you die, it's voided.

Likewise, we aren't, through Jesus, bound to the "Law" Covenant (contract) anymore because he fulfilled it by completing it on our behalf, hence the term "ransom for all". So we only have to do what he commanded, and the new religion established by him in the NT.

However I'd like to add that you're being a hypocrite by picking and choosing what you want to believe in and what you want to follow

See above, we aren't picking and choosing.

Leviticus is in the old testament. Romans and Corinthians is in the new.

This is probably a decent read for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

I only mentioned the Levitical injunction to show you how the theme of homosexual relations are throughout the Bible.

 

[randomrogue]

I am definitely unfamiliar with what you wrote. Isn't it a stretch that the Old Testament and all it's laws were a contract to be fulfilled by Jesus?

Since the New Testament was written after his death, and in some cases many hundreds of years after his death, who was it that made this decision?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

I see where you're getting this from but how is this really applicable to the entire old testament and laws governing slavery, adultery, etc?

Once again though, although I enjoy this discussion, you can't lean on the crutch of the bible to excuse bigotry and treating one group different than another because of things like their race and sexual orientation.

 

[Craig234]

The Romans 1 message is interesting. It condemns a lot more than the sort of same-sex activities it does, which are debatable whether they apply to hiomosexual people:

...being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...

So put in the same category are coveting, deceiving, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful (how's Guantanamo going?)... and other things. Inventing WHAT 'evil things'?

Boasting... "USA! USA #1!"

And the entire list above is said to be people who deserve to be killed apparently.

So, you're in favor of executing anyone who does any of the above, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

The Romans 1 message is interesting. It condemns a lot more than the sort of same-sex activities it does, which are debatable whether they apply to hiomosexual people:

Yes it does, but we were on the topic of same-sex relationships, were we not?

Ah... but you think we (I) am ignoring the other prohibitions!! I recognize this sort of call out.

Nope... I am not. I adhere to it, not perfectly, but as closely as I can.

So put in the same category are coveting, deceiving, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful (how's Guantanamo going?)... and other things. Inventing WHAT 'evil things'?

Boasting... "USA! USA #1!"

And the entire list above is said to be people who deserve to be killed apparently.

So, you're in favor of executing anyone who does any of the above, right?

I am not in favor of executing anyone -- but if God exists and He will execute "wrongdoers", who I am to question him?

Obviously through the Bible, he isn't asking for human permission/approval, so he knows what he's doing.

 

[Craig234]

Yes it does, but we were on the topic of same-sex relationships, were we not?

Ah... but you think we (I) am ignoring the other prohibitions!! I recognize this sort of call out.

Nope... I am not. I adhere to it, not perfectly, but as closely as I can.

So, your 'imperfection' allows for opposing gay equality, but not things that inconvenience you.

Note: calling when hypocrisy is pointed out a 'call out' doesn't provide much of a defense of the hypocrisy.

Can you list which of the words I quoted you are in favor of executing people for, which you're not, and how you justify the 'imperfections' of being consistent?

I am not in favor of executing anyone -- but if God exists and He will execute "wrongdoers", who I am to question him?

Obviously through the Bible, he isn't asking for human permission/approval, so he knows what he's doing.

So, you look at that list, and putting aside the question of whether same-sex acts applies to homosexuals or heterosexuals, you say that you don't view what the passage says is the appropriate result for those people - execution - is anything you need to take any action on, but yet you DO take action on not supporting equal rights for gays?

So for the other thngs listed, you do absolutely nothing as punishment or sanction for those people, but for one thing you think might be listed, homosexuality, you refuse to support equal rights, greatly harming homosexual people to equality, and all the benefits of marriage? You just 'make up' that you can cherry pick that sort of 'enforcement'?

Why don't you just leave the enforcement of the judgement you think the passage calls for alone for gay sex, like you do the other issues?

Give gays equal rights - and if they're executed, so be it?

You just take it on yourself not to support equal rights for them alone on that list.

Sounds to me like you fit some of the words on the list. Unloving for one. Undiscerning about the issue of gays seems pretty right on. Unmerciful.

Funny, the passage does not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual people. A distinction we now understand a lot better.

Homosexual sex IS pretty 'perverse' when done by heterosexuals. Your cruel denial of rights seems to me to be in violation of the teachings.

 

[Vaux]

Vaux, what about heterosexual couples who can't give birth?

Heterosexual people that are unable to make children would be considered to have a defect as well. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with heterosexual couples. Man and woman were made to be attracted to each other and come together.

You can't seem to understand that there is no purpose to life.

I agree with that. I don't think there is a meaning of life, either.

Just like there is no right way for one species to evolve.

That is false. There is one way that a species is certain to never evolve, and that would be to evolve to terminate itself. Everything in nature is designed to reproduce and continue. Homosexuality goes against that.

Homosexuals make up only 2% of the entire population and their behavior does not effect the behavior of others.

I wasn't really speaking of it's affect on others, so that is irrelevant. But just because something doesn't affect other people does not make it a right thing to do.

 

[Vaux]

Made to come together as one? You mean ejaculate at the same time? If you meant not made to have sex, well, then I guess blowjobs are not meant to be, either.

Haha no I didn't mean ejaculate at the same time. Meaning atatomically, their bodies are not meant to fit together and they are not able to reproduce. As far as blowjobs go, that is just another thing that people do. They are not meant to be a permanent replacement for sex.

Homosexuals can indeed procreate and the biology of how it happens is no different than it is with heterosexuals, even if the way the sperm got to the egg is different.

Well I suppose they can procreate, using unnatural medical tricks. This is not a solution, however. We have reached a point in technology that enables us to do things like this. And it potentially opens up a morality can of worms.

Aside from procreation, though, humans are one of a very small handful of animal species (all of which are highly intelligent) that has sex purely for pleasure instead of purely because of a mating instinct. This ability could have evolved as some byproduct of our intelligence or be directly caused by it. Either way, we've got it. Nature seems to be telling us that procreation is not the only reason for sex.

I agree with this. However, nature is also telling you that homosexuals are not made to be sexual partners.

Of course it is your judgement. From an evolutionary and nature perspective, all of the evidence points to homosexuality being as benign as being left-handed.

I still can't see how you think it's my judgement. It's as obvious as stating humans need oxygen to breathe. Oh I guess that is not really true either, that is just my judgement. ?

 

[randomrogue]

Vaux you're living in some kind of crazy bubble. How in the world could you be from a metropolitan area like Philly and think like this? That's the second largest city on the east coast and surely you would have been exposed to enough diversity to not have these kind of naive opinions.

 

[randomrogue]

Shit read that wrong. You're not from Philly. Either way those aren't exactly backwoods cities are they?