Is marriage a religious or a secular ritual now?

Well, what do you think? I think marriage should now be a considered a secular ritual (despite its religious origins). Because of those beliefs, I find it discriminating how homosexuals aren't allowed to marry. If it is a religious ritual still, then the government should even be allowed to marry people because they should have nothing to do with religious rituals.

First of all, homosexuals are allowed to marry in the United States. They're just not allowed to marry people of the same sex. There's a difference that needs to be noted.

I personally think that government should not have any say on marrital affairs. Instead, that should be reserved for the individuals' decision. If they want to call it marriage, then fine. I actually don't know the civil benefits that marriage entails, but I don't see why someone has to be married to acquire them.

First of all, homosexuals are allowed to marry in the United States. They're just not allowed to marry people of the same sex. There's a difference that needs to be noted.

Genetic_Code

No offense, but I've always found that to be one of the goofiest things I've ever heard. :P It's like the age-old joke of, "You can have it in any color, provided it's black."

Anyways, this question cannot be answered, because marriage is both. That's the fundamental problem, really. It is a ritual that is often performed in a religious manner, with a priest presiding, but it need not be, and in either case it also carries with it legal rights and privileges. There are two things that are both called "marriage": the religious ceremony by which a man and a woman are declared husband and wife, and the legal recognition of the relationship of two people which brings with it legal benefits.

What we really ought to do is to have no legal marriage for everyone and delegate marriage solely to the churches. Then, we call the legal side of marriage "civil unions" or whatever, and have that be completely separate from any religious definitions of this thing called "marriage". Then religious people can bar anyone they want from marrying, so they're happy, and the people who are barred from marrying can nonetheless get all of the legal benefits of what are now called civil unions for everyone, so they're happy too. Finally, make it so that anyone who goes through the reigious ceremony of marriage is automatically conferred a civil union as well, for the sake of convenience. Hey presto, everything we've currently got is intact, but the government is completely and totally separated from religion, and homosexual people can have what they want (the ability to receive the full legal benefits of legal marriage and parity with heterosexual people on the matter).

Sadly, this approach makes far too much sense for it to ever happen in reality.

I do feel that the whole "redefinition of marriage" line, as used today, has a fatal flaw in it, though, even without this idea: marriage has already been redefined only forty years ago when interracial marriage was legalized nationwide. Now there are two responses religious people can make to this - admitting that it was or saying that it wasn't - and both assertions have different fatal flaws in them. If they admit that it was redefined - and that they were fine with that - then they have shown that they have nothing against the redefinition of marriage, only this particular redefinition, thus undermining their entire argument. And if they say that it wasn't, then they have completely separated legal marriage from religious marriage, and the completely logical conclusion is that, therefore, legalizing gay marriage in the legal code will also not redefine marriage if the legalization of interracial marriage did not redefine marriage, also undermining their entire argument. The whole argument, therefore, is complete bunk. The only way they can make that claim that marriage ought not to be redefined and not have their entire argument immediately undermined is to also oppose interracial marriage, which, ah, is something that most would probably prefer not to do.

In today's world, most people marry for love, commitment, and to raise a family rather than for religious reasons. Weddings still take place in churches probably because of 1) tradition 2) their aesthetics and ability to hold a lot of people 3) the fact that many less-religious people still believe in God and would call themselves Christian.

I find it absolutely asinine that same-sex marriage is illegal. As I've noted several times before in different threads, separate but equal civil unions (which are more like 1/4-1/3 equal) should be ruled unconstitutional nationwide because of Brown v. Board of Education. I also believe that as long as there are government benefits to marriage and churches are allowed to perform official civil marriages, they should have no right to deny marriage to homosexuals. However, if the United States were to adopt a system like that which exists in France, in which the civil and religious ceremonies are entirely separate, they should be able to retain that right as it is their belief, no matter how bigoted it is.

Some would probably call my opinion on gay marriage extreme. The way I see it (and I hope I'm right), homosexuals are the "Blacks of our time" (and the award for most politically correct statement goes to...) in that we'll all look back on this in a few decades and wonder what the hell was wrong with society that allowed this group to be descriminated against as it was

As for the tax breaks and such that come with being married, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I am curious as to why it's the government's business that people are getting married.

Marriage is a legal contract in the United States.  If a couple chooses they can have it "endorsed" by the church of their choosing, or get married at any number of different places.  Homosexuals not being able to marry is one of my biggest pet peeves.  Marriage has many legal (there's that word again) benefits in the US.  The two worked at the same company for 18 years, average loss of insurance benefits, $100 per month, around $21k. No bs, two friends of mine for over 15 years are lesbians.  They have been together as long as I have known them.  When 1 went into the hospital with cervical cancer the other had to obey non-family visiting hours (she stayed for nearly a month)  When JoAnn had surgery last year I slept in her room all 5 days she was there.  Insane.  That is insane and inhumane, period.  They recently moved to take over one's family business in Key West.  She e-mailed me and said it cost them around 50k to set it up legally so the other could take over in the event of one of them dying suddenly.  50k, think about that.  My will took a few hours to write and my friend is a notary public, so that's how much it cost me and my wife to ensure that each other will be taken care of if something happens, and they have 7 years on us. 

As you can tell this a soap box item for me.  These people are dear family friends and it's a shame they don't have even 1/10th the rights my wife and I do.

To me it's both, and I like Gabu's idea alot.

But marriage to me will always primarily sacred and religious, the legal benefits are just bonuses.

Scripture does not mention any regulations for marriage between two nonbelievers.  Because of that silence I do not have a problem with state sanctioned marriage.  (Marriage between pagans are mentioned and it's never mentioned to be right or wrong so I'm not going to assume it's wrong.)

What scripture does mention is God ordaining the marriage between two believers and that a believer should not marry a nonbeliever.  When it comes to marrying two nonbelievers I do not think it is a moral wrong.  The wrong is their denial of Christ, not the covenant they place with one another.  Granted, I think God's seal of approval is a little more special and binding for a biblical marriage than a nonbelievers marriage.  (Which in turn means it's an even worse offence for believers to divorce in normal situations.)

Scripture also admonishes homosexual practices.  Because of that admonition, I simply can't support a homosexual marriage.  I could go into more detail about my thoughts on homosexuals and homosexual marriage but I'll leave that for if I'm asked about it.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

First of all, homosexuals are allowed to marry in the United States. They're just not allowed to marry people of the same sex. There's a difference that needs to be noted.

GabuEx

No offense, but I've always found that to be one of the goofiest things I've ever heard. :P It's like the age-old joke of, "You can have it in any color, provided it's black."

No offense taken. I'd thought that paragraph would receive notice. It's just that calling it homosexual marriage is forgetting bisexuals or even people who don't have sexual preferences but want to be in a sexless relationship. Marriage isn't necessarily about sex and that's why I never understood why sexual preference has to do with it (although I do realize that marriage is often considered a gateway to have sex).

Additionally, I've never heard of a good argument as to why people of the same sex should get married. They can't reproduce so therefore, they're having sex for non-reproductive reasons. When individuals have sex for non-reproductive reasons, then there's no reason for them to get married. And yes, I realize that infertile individuals get married. That blows a hole in my argument. 

Oh, and another problem I have with same-sex marriage is that many people don't want to legalize polygamy, and in my opinion, if we're going to legalize same-sex marriage, I see no reason wrong with polygamy. I just think we should offer civil benefits for individuals that are very close. They don't have to be roommates or lovers necessarily. If I trust someone with my life, even if he or she is just a friend, then I can trust that they would make a proper medical decision when I'm unable to.

Here's a list of benefits for anyone interested. 

Genetic_Code:

Do you think homosexual couples should be able to adopt children? If so, being married with his/her partner would greatly benefit the children as many legal procedures would be quicker and easier to do. Plus, do you not think it is discrimatory for the government to refuse to let homosexuals to marry? Marriage isn't only about having children; some see it as a confirmation of their love.

Mindstorm:

Do you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children? What about homosexual couples? Homosexuality isn't a disease that can be caught through contact.

Mindstorm:

Do you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children? What about homosexual couples? Homosexuality isn't a disease that can be caught through contact.

helium_flash

I agree it is not a disease, and that a homosexual can be just as "good" of a person as I am. In response to whether a practicing homosexual can adopt... I'll say that I have no more of a problem with it than a nonbeliever adopting children.  My first choice is a Christian home, but I'd much rather have a child brought up in a homosexual household where he or she is treated with love than a nonbelieving family where the child is mistreated.

I should let it also be known that I agree a homosexual can be a practicing Christian... that is to say this homosexual does not seek to carry out his or her attraction.

No offense taken. I'd thought that paragraph would receive notice. It's just that calling it homosexual marriage is forgetting bisexuals or even people who don't have sexual preferences but want to be in a sexless relationship. Marriage isn't necessarily about sex and that's why I never understood why sexual preference has to do with it (although I do realize that marriage is often considered a gateway to have sex). Genetic_Code

Additionally, I've never heard of a good argument as to why people of the same sex should get married. They can't reproduce so therefore, they're having sex for non-reproductive reasons. When individuals have sex for non-reproductive reasons, then there's no reason for them to get married. And yes, I realize that infertile individuals get married. That blows a hole in my argument. Genetic_Code

Oh, and another problem I have with same-sex marriage is that many people don't want to legalize polygamy, and in my opinion, if we're going to legalize same-sex marriage, I see no reason wrong with polygamy. I just think we should offer civil benefits for individuals that are very close. They don't have to be roommates or lovers necessarily. If I trust someone with my life, even if he or she is just a friend, then I can trust that they would make a proper medical decision when I'm unable to.

Here's a list of benefits for anyone interested. 

Genetic_Code

In polygamy there is the risk of a man or woman getting married with others without the first partner or any partner knowing that he/she got married again. Then it is about devotion and cheating. I don't see how that relates to homosexual marriage. It is more like putting polygamy and homosexuality in the same sack just because of social no-nos... and then it does become a gross equalization.

I hate alarmism and gross equalizations.There are huge differences between the two and I don't get it how people connect irrelevant things.

In polygamy there is the risk of a man or woman getting married with others without the first partner or any partner knowing that he/she got married again. Then it is about devotion and cheating. I don't see how that relates to homosexual marriage. It is more like putting polygamy and homosexuality in the same sack just because of social no-nos... and then it does become a gross equalization.

Teenaged

What if the spouse gives the other consent to marry someone else? A consensual polygamous marriage is generally not looked upon as socially acceptable, by even the most liberal of people. So no, I don't think it's an equalization.

Unless of course, you can explain me the importance of two individuals. I mean, what's so important about two individuals anyway? Why not three or four?

What if the spouse gives the other consent to marry someone else? A consensual polygamous marriage is generally not looked upon as socially acceptable, by even the most liberal of people. So no, I don't think it's an equalization.

Unless of course, you can explain me the importance of two individuals. I mean, what's so important about two individuals anyway? Why not three or four?

Genetic_Code

Now if a woman/man is to be ok with his/her partner marrying more people, then why would I have a problem.

 How is it not an equalization? The only thing in common between homosexual marriage and polygamy is that they are not socially acceptable. That's why they are sacked together and treated the same. It reminds me (although not so gross) the compare between homosexuality and pedophilia. One would say: "well they are both deviant forms of sexuality". Yes so what? They fall into the same category. Does that matter? Don't details, and important ones, matter?

Because people give great importance to singularities (I think that is called monomania - not sure). They tend to want to be with one person all their lives, they usually have one best friend, they have one best videogame, etc etc.

Teenaged

Precisely, and also because one cannot serve two individuals and if you were to start a family with a woman, and then start another family with a different woman, then your children wouldn't have the same mothers, therefore making it a complicated framework of a family.

Marriage serves as a gateway to a family and two men or two women cannot reproduce.

Now if a woman/man is to be ok with his/her partner marrying more people, then why would I have a problem.

Teenaged

I'll have to applaud you for keeping a standard of which I consider at the very least fair to all parties involved, even if I disagree with you for practical reasons. I just think my approach is just as fair and less progressive and demanding on society.

How is it not an equalization? The only thing in common between homosexual marriage and polygamy is that they are not socially acceptable. That's why they are sacked together and treated the same. It reminds me (although not so gross) the compare between homosexuality and pedophilia. One would say: "well they are both deviant forms of sexuality". Yes so what? They fall into the same category. Does that matter? Don't details, and important ones, matter?

Teenaged

I hope you don't literally won't to legalize pedophilia.

Precisely, and also because one cannot serve two individuals and if you were to start a family with a woman, and then start another family with a different woman, then your children wouldn't have the same mothers, therefore making it a complicated framework of a family.

Marriage serves as a gateway to a family and two men or two women cannot reproduce.

Genetic_Code

When one though cannot have children (ex homosexuals) why can't they get married? It's like saying a person who wants to travel to an island that he can go there. But he has to take the train instead, because he is not allowed to take the ship. Will he ever reach the island? No. The island is happiness. If we use the argument that homosexuals can have children (by having sex with people of the opposite sex) and can marry with the people of the opposite sex only then you are asking them to do those things with terms that will not make them happy, nor their partner, or their offspring. It will end up being messed up, pretentious and not moral imo.

I'll have to applaud you for keeping a standard of which I consider at the very least fair to all parties involved, even if I disagree with you for practical reasons. I just think my approach is just as fair and less progressive and demanding on society.

Genetic_Code

But those risks are not there in homosexual marriage in itself.

I hope you don't literally won't to legalize pedophilia.

Genetic_Code

The individual wouldn't use a train to reach the island because he couldn't, just like an individual wouldn't start a family, a biological one at least, with someone of the same sex.

Oh, and Gabu, you're correct. Homosexual most literally means "same sex" so it can be used to describe same-sex marriage. 

The individual wouldn't use a train to reach the island because he couldn't, just like an individual wouldn't start a family, a biological one at least, with someone of the same sex.

Genetic_Code

The individual wouldn't use a train to reach the island because he couldn't, just like an individual wouldn't start a family, a biological one at least, with someone of the same sex.Teenaged

No problem. I just don't think I properly understood the analogy. Aw, I think I understand it. If the island is happiness then so is marriage. If the ship is a gateway of reproduction and the train is not then the ship will reach the island and the train will not, so you don't provide homosexuals with a train, amiright?

Still though you keep on insisting that marriage exists only for people to have children which is just an assumption about a ritual that has no absolute meaning, it is evolving, it is personal  and not practical.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The individual wouldn't use a train to reach the island because he couldn't, just like an individual wouldn't start a family, a biological one at least, with someone of the same sex.Genetic_Code

No problem. I just don't think I properly understood the analogy. Aw, I think I understand it. If the island is happiness then so is marriage. If the ship is a gateway of reproduction and the train is not then the ship will reach the island and the train will not, so you don't provide homosexuals with a train, amiright?

Anyway, my only point is that if we insist on homosexuals having a marriage with people of the opposite sex (because it is the norm), then it is like forcing them to reach the island by swimming which is imposible and a tremendous feat. In the end it makes you not want to reach the island and give up.

But pretty much the analogy is filled with gaps, so just leave it. :P

I think single individuals should be allowed to adopt children if they meet the qualifications. It does not matter what their love life entails. I don't think government should have any say on marriage. I think they should leave it to places of worship.Genetic_Code

But, like I said, legally it would be much easier if they were married to raise children than if they weren't. Marriage would benefit the entire family.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I hate alarmism and gross equalizations.There are huge differences between the two and I don't get it how people connect irrelevant things.

In polygamy there is the risk of a man or woman getting married with others without the first partner or any partner knowing that he/she got married again. Then it is about devotion and cheating. I don't see how that relates to homosexual marriage. It is more like putting polygamy and homosexuality in the same sack just because of social no-nos... and then it does become a gross equalization.

Genetic_Code

What if the spouse gives the other consent to marry someone else? A consensual polygamous marriage is generally not looked upon as socially acceptable, by even the most liberal of people. So no, I don't think it's an equalization.

Unless of course, you can explain me the importance of two individuals. I mean, what's so important about two individuals anyway? Why not three or four?

You can choose to become a polygamist; you can't choose to become a homosexual. Homosexuals are being discriminated against for something they were born with.

Plus, polygamy isn't safe. What if the father has AIDS? That means a plethora of other people could be infected. What kind of environment would the child have where he would have many different fathers or mothers? I don't think that would be a very good environment to grow up in.

Throughout history it has been natural to become exclusive to one other person, even before biblical times. Homosexuality, while not really natural, is unpreventable. Polygamy is neither natural nor unpreventable.

But, like I said, legally it would be much easier if they were married to raise children than if they weren't. Marriage would benefit the entire family.

helium_flash

So would civil unions. 

You can choose to become a polygamist; you can't choose to become a homosexual. Homosexuals are being discriminated against for something they were born with.

helium_flash

I've heard that there may be some debate as to whether humans have any free will whatsoever or if their decisions are already predetermined by their genetic makeup. The point is no one can substantially make a sound claim on the issue of "choice". Therefore, we must evaluate if the action is moral, regardless if it is a choice or not that way, we can better prevent people from making the wrong action.

Besides, ask any married man or woman if they've ever had sexual thoughts about someone else and I would be willing to imagine that they have. Maybe she's born with it. Maybe it's Maybelline. 

Plus, polygamy isn't safe. What if the father has AIDS?helium_flash

What if a gay man has AIDS? What about the dangers of anal sex? Homosexuals are far more likely to have it than heterosexuals.

That means a plethora of other people could be infected. What kind of environment would the child have where he would have many different fathers or mothers? I don't think that would be a very good environment to grow up in.helium_flash

What if the child only had two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father. What's the difference? It's still not the established status quo.

 

Throughout history it has been natural to become exclusive to one other person, even before biblical times. Homosexuality, while not really natural, is unpreventable. Polygamy is neither natural nor unpreventable.

helium_flash

Homosexuality is preventable. It's called abstinence. Polygaymy is just as preventable. It's called chastity. Yet, there are still homosexuals and there are still adulterers.

Homosexuality is preventable. It's called abstinence. Polygaymy is just as preventable. It's called chastity. Yet, there are still homosexuals and there are still adulterers.

Genetic_Code

Until someone proves to me that marriage which does not aim in reproduction is immoral with sound arguments... well untill then my point stands.

Homosexuality is preventable. It's called abstinence. Polygaymy is just as preventable. It's called chastity. Yet, there are still homosexuals and there are still adulterers.

Genetic_Code

Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual sex.  Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to members of the same sex.  That is true regardless of whether or not you attempt to suppress your desires, and it is not something that can be.  Conversely, polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse.  Polygamy is something you do; homosexuality is something you are.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Homosexuality is preventable. It's called abstinence. Polygaymy is just as preventable. It's called chastity. Yet, there are still homosexuals and there are still adulterers.

GabuEx

Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual sex.  Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to members of the same sex.  That is true regardless of whether or not you attempt to suppress your desires, and it is not something that can be.  Conversely, polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse.  Polygamy is something you do; homosexuality is something you are.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

But, like I said, legally it would be much easier if they were married to raise children than if they weren't. Marriage would benefit the entire family.

Genetic_Code

So would civil unions. 

You should have said that earlier. I dont think anyone here knows that you are supportive of civil unions of homosexuals. Are you in favor of what GabuEx proposed in this thread in the beginning?

Marriage may be a religious thing but if even if this divine addon is taken out of the whole process, marriage wouldn't loose it's integrity. Marriage isn't something like visiting a church or a mosque for religious sessions and that if you are not religious then this practice would be meaningless. Religion alone can't claim full dominion over a practice which is so intimately intertwined with the social system. When people get married it's obviously not because they are trying to be religious. There are other obvious reasons behind it...

People may call it whatever they like, marriage, social union, but religion is just a very little part of it.

Someone who doesn't understand the burden of homosexuality shouldn't ask such things so lightly. ;) Abstinence is also about taking away from someone the choice to be happy. Because abstinence will not only mean no homo-sex but a general aversion from one's sexual orientation. It's psychologically violent. That is immoral.

Until someone proves to me that marriage which does not aim in reproduction is immoral with sound arguments... well untill then my point stands.

Teenaged

Abstinence? Immoral? People use reproductive instruments for purposes not intended. That's immoral.

Abstinence is not a matter of being unhappy but a matter of being safe and fully prepared to engage in sex when the time is right. 

Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual sex.  Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to members of the same sex.  That is true regardless of whether or not you attempt to suppress your desires, and it is not something that can be.  Conversely, polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse.  Polygamy is something you do; homosexuality is something you are.

GabuEx

Fair point that needs to be clarified. Whenever I referred to homosexuality, I was referring to the actual act of sex. I had a feeling that would've been picked out of the lineup. It is the actual act that's wrong, not the mere assumption that there might be some sexual tension between you and a person of the same sex. 

You should have said that earlier. I dont think anyone here knows that you are supportive of civil unions of homosexuals. Are you in favor of what GabuEx proposed in this thread in the beginning?

helium_flash

Yes, but I care not for conclusions, but the arguments that make them up. You don't need to know where I stand to know where you should stand. I only came out aggressively to play the devil's advocate primarily because I think a lot of people are easily too swayed to be receptive of homosexuality, just because it's "love". Strictly speaking, and the same applies for heterosexuality, it's not a matter of love as so much it is about sex. I'll admit that love is a honorable trait, but I simply don't see the need for sex to play any role in it whatsoever.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Someone who doesn't understand the burden of homosexuality shouldn't ask such things so lightly. ;) Abstinence is also about taking away from someone the choice to be happy. Because abstinence will not only mean no homo-sex but a general aversion from one's sexual orientation. It's psychologically violent. That is immoral.

Until someone proves to me that marriage which does not aim in reproduction is immoral with sound arguments... well untill then my point stands.

Genetic_Code

Abstinence? Immoral? People use reproductive instruments for purposes not intended. That's immoral.

Abstinence is not a matter of being unhappy but a matter of being safe and fully prepared to engage in sex when the time is right. 

Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual sex.  Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to members of the same sex.  That is true regardless of whether or not you attempt to suppress your desires, and it is not something that can be.  Conversely, polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse.  Polygamy is something you do; homosexuality is something you are.

GabuEx

Fair point that needs to be clarified. Whenever I referred to homosexuality, I was referring to the actual act of sex. I had a feeling that would've been picked out of the lineup. It is the actual act that's wrong, not the mere assumption that there might be some sexual tension between you and a person of the same sex. 

You should have said that earlier. I dont think anyone here knows that you are supportive of civil unions of homosexuals. Are you in favor of what GabuEx proposed in this thread in the beginning?

helium_flash

Yes, but I care not for conclusions, but the arguments that make them up. You don't need to know where I stand to know where you should stand. I only came out aggressively to play the devil's advocate primarily because I think a lot of people are easily too swayed to be receptive of homosexuality, just because it's "love". Strictly speaking, and the same applies for heterosexuality, it's not a matter of love as so much it is about sex. I'll admit that love is a honorable trait, but I simply don't see the need for sex to play any role in it whatsoever.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

You should have said that earlier. I dont think anyone here knows that you are supportive of civil unions of homosexuals. Are you in favor of what GabuEx proposed in this thread in the beginning?

Genetic_Code

Yes, but I care not for conclusions, but the arguments that make them up. You don't need to know where I stand to know where you should stand. I only came out aggressively to play the devil's advocate primarily because I think a lot of people are easily too swayed to be receptive of homosexuality, just because it's "love". Strictly speaking, and the same applies for heterosexuality, it's not a matter of love as so much it is about sex. I'll admit that love is a honorable trait, but I simply don't see the need for sex to play any role in it whatsoever.

My girlfriend propsed an idea to me saying that the government should create something called "sharriage" (marriage + sharing) which would be like homosexual marriage. Kinda clever.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Someone who doesn't understand the burden of homosexuality shouldn't ask such things so lightly. ;) Abstinence is also about taking away from someone the choice to be happy. Because abstinence will not only mean no homo-sex but a general aversion from one's sexual orientation. It's psychologically violent. That is immoral.

Until someone proves to me that marriage which does not aim in reproduction is immoral with sound arguments... well untill then my point stands.

Genetic_Code

Abstinence? Immoral? People use reproductive instruments for purposes not intended. That's immoral.

Abstinence is not a matter of being unhappy but a matter of being safe and fully prepared to engage in sex when the time is right. 

So next one: the point was what would happen if we forced homosexual people to marry people of the opposite sex with the argument that "they can actually get married just not with the people they want to".

So the alternative you gave if they don't marry people of the opposite sex was abstinence. So since they can't get married at all, according to you that abstinence would last forever. Am I right? But that as I said before would demand by them to have a complete aversion of their sexuality. And whether you feel for them or not, this is psychologicaly violent, which in turn is immoral. It is forcing someone to reject a huge part of who he/she is, it is forcing one to live a life that will not make him/her happy at all (in case they marry someone of the opposite sex), while if they do what they want your only argument is that it is immoral, something I await for you to prove to me.

On the contrary the things I mentioned above are immoral because they constitute psychological violence on no justified grounds other than the issue of morality which is yet to be proven with arguments.

Yes, but I care not for conclusions, but the arguments that make them up. You don't need to know where I stand to know where you should stand. I only came out aggressively to play the devil's advocate primarily because I think a lot of people are easily too swayed to be receptive of homosexuality, just because it's "love". Strictly speaking, and the same applies for heterosexuality, it's not a matter of love as so much it is about sex. I'll admit that love is a honorable trait, but I simply don't see the need for sex to play any role in it whatsoever.

Genetic_Code

And yet you seem to vew sex only in its meaningless form. But that is simply not true. Why is sex condemnable, can you please explain?

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Yes, but I care not for conclusions, but the arguments that make them up. You don't need to know where I stand to know where you should stand. I only came out aggressively to play the devil's advocate primarily because I think a lot of people are easily too swayed to be receptive of homosexuality, just because it's "love". Strictly speaking, and the same applies for heterosexuality, it's not a matter of love as so much it is about sex. I'll admit that love is a honorable trait, but I simply don't see the need for sex to play any role in it whatsoever.

Teenaged

And yet you seem to vew sex only in its meaningless form. But that is simply not true. Why is sex condemnable, can you please explain?

This argument pretty much boils down between Genetic_Code's morals viewing sex and our morals viewing sex, which will lead us nowhere.

I took it that you were against homosexual civil unions as well.helium_flash

Morally, yes. Legally, no. I'm for polygamous civil "unions" because I don't think individuals should have to be "soul mates" to make medical decisions or housing arrangements. I think being close friends should be enough. I know that there are close friends of mine that I would trust my life with. I hope that makes sense.

So, to clarify, do you think that only religious people should get married? Because if you say yes, I could agree with the fact that homosexuals shouldn't get married because their religion is against the marriage.helium_flash

I think that the definition of marriage should be reserved to private interpretation. Does it have to be in a church? No, not necessarily because of the loose definition of the term "religion" (if you want to stretch the term, you can make drinking at Starbuck's out to be a religion), but government cannot call it a marriage. 

My girlfriend propsed an idea to me saying that the government should create something called "sharriage" (marriage + sharing) which would be like homosexual marriage. Kinda clever.helium_flash

That's weird. When I used to support same sex marriage, I wanted to classify same sex marriage as "farriage" which was a mix of female and marriage. Not as clever.

Wait a minute. Have you proven that it is immoral to have sex without having children? Of course outside religious dogmas. No.Teenaged

No one mentioned religious dogmas. I may not be personally able to prove that it is immoral to have sex outside of reproductive purposes. As long as give you my best effort, I don't care if my premise is accepted or not. It doesn't change reality.

First off, sex is intended for reproduction, just like drinking is done to quench your thirst. Sure, you may be able to drink and enjoy the taste of the drink, but drinking merely because of the taste and not because of one's thirst is gluttony, just like sex merely for the pleasure and not for reproduction is unchaste.

So next one: the point was what would happen if we forced homosexual people to marry people of the opposite sex with the argument that "they can actually get married just not with the people they want to".Teenaged

No one was referring to forcing people to marry anyone. 

So the alternative you gave if they don't marry people of the opposite sex was abstinence. So since they can't get married at all, according to you that abstinence would last forever. Am I right? But that as I said before would demand by them to have a complete aversion of their sexuality. And whether you feel for them or not, this is psychologicaly violent, which in turn is immoral. It is forcing someone to reject a huge part of who he/she is, it is forcing one to live a life that will not make him/her happy at all (in case they marry someone of the opposite sex), while if they do what they want your only argument is that it is immoral, something I await for you to prove to me.

On the contrary the things I mentioned above are immoral because they constitute psychological violence on no justified grounds other than the issue of morality which is yet to be proven with arguments.Teenaged

How is that psychologically violent? Is is psychologically violent to suppress a killer's instinct? Would that be immoral to suppress a killer's instinct? The equivocation is a bit overplayed, but the point is solid. As I have already established, sexuality is wrong; not nearly as wrong as murder, but still wrong nevertheless. Therefore, we must suppress all wrongful thoughts. Additionally, if one does not marry, that does not mean that they still can't love an individual. Marriage is best designed as a gateway for a biological family; no if's, and's, or but's.

No one mentioned religious dogmas. I may not be personally able to prove that it is immoral to have sex outside of reproductive purposes. As long as give you my best effort, I don't care if my premise is accepted or not. It doesn't change reality.

First off, sex is intended for reproduction, just like drinking is done to quench your thirst. Sure, you may be able to drink and enjoy the taste of the drink, but drinking merely because of the taste and not because of one's thirst is gluttony, just like sex merely for the pleasure and not for reproduction is unchaste.Genetic_Code

First off, sex is intended for reproduction, just like drinking is done to quench your thirst. Sure, you may be able to drink and enjoy the taste of the drink, but drinking merely because of the taste and not because of one's thirst is gluttony, just like sex merely for the pleasure and not for reproduction is unchaste.

Genetic_Code

I don't exactly see the comparison there.  It has been clinically proven that regular sex has a number of health benefits, including stress relief, boosting the immune system, improved cardiovascular health, a lowered prostate cancer risk in men, and improved sleep at night.  Thus, having regular sex makes someone healthier than they would be if they abstained from sex.  If we were supposed to only have sex for reproduction and then never on any other occasion, why would sustained sexual activity (with or without reproduction) carry with it health benefits?

Whoa there. I am a woman, married to a man. We have made a joint decision not to have children, and have taken medical steps to prevent pregnancies in the future. You're saying that because we will not have children, sex between us is unchaste and immoral, and we should not be doing it. And here is where fundamentally different ways of looking at sex come into play. We are married, and sex is one of many ways that married couples express their love for each other, and one of the most important ways to strengthen the bond necessary for a marriage to last. But that is morally wrong and should not be done? Explain.ChiliDragon

It sounds extreme. I'm aware of that. Perhaps I'm wrong. That's fine. I'll admit that when I reached this decision, I didn't really like it and was uncomfortable with it. Still am. 

I don't exactly see the comparison there.  It has been clinically proven that regular sex has a number of health benefits, including stress relief, boosting the immune system, improved cardiovascular health, a lowered prostate cancer risk in men, and improved sleep at night.  Thus, having regular sex makes someone healthier than they would be if they abstained from sex.  If we were supposed to only have sex for reproduction and then never on any other occasion, why would sustained sexual activity (with or without reproduction) carry with it health benefits?

GabuEx

I've heard similar reports and I have no satisfactory answer, so therefore I'll leave you without much of an argument because there isn't a solid one that I could even configure to match yours. 

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Whoa there. I am a woman, married to a man. We have made a joint decision not to have children, and have taken medical steps to prevent pregnancies in the future. You're saying that because we will not have children, sex between us is unchaste and immoral, and we should not be doing it. And here is where fundamentally different ways of looking at sex come into play. We are married, and sex is one of many ways that married couples express their love for each other, and one of the most important ways to strengthen the bond necessary for a marriage to last. But that is morally wrong and should not be done? Explain.Genetic_Code

It sounds extreme. I'm aware of that. Perhaps I'm wrong. That's fine. I'll admit that when I reached this decision, I didn't really like it and was uncomfortable with it. Still am. 

That's an evasion, not an explanation ;)ChiliDragon

Yes I know, but the truth is I don't have an explanation. 

How is that psychologically violent? Is is psychologically violent to suppress a killer's instinct? Would that be immoral to suppress a killer's instinct? The equivocation is a bit overplayed, but the point is solid. As I have already established, sexuality is wrong; not nearly as wrong as murder, but still wrong nevertheless. Therefore, we must suppress all wrongful thoughts. Additionally, if one does not marry, that does not mean that they still can't love an individual. Marriage is best designed as a gateway for a biological family; no if's, and's, or but's.

Genetic_Code

And the point is not solid. I clearly mentioned that it is psychologically violent without a justified reason. In the killer's instinct you have the reason that you are preventing something horrible: a murder/kill. What are you preventing in homosexuality? Nothing.

So this is another unfair equalisation. (Is equivocation the best word in stead of equalisation? because I saw you use it)

Again the notion that marriage is designed for reproduction purposes only is established by modern religions, and that says nothing about the reality of marriage, which as I said is an act of commitment and a proof of love. Not a ceremony that magically renders what's going in your bedroom, holy.

So the bottomline is: morality, and a reasonable one, is based on things brought upon others: harm, violence (either physical or psychological). The killer is justifiably considered immoral and should be suppressed because he would harm the people around him (kill them, or injure them in his efforts), while a homosexual is unjustifiably suppressed since he/she hurts no one.

I really didn't expect such gross equalisations to be used, sorry.

No one was referring to forcing people to marry anyone. 

Genetic_Code

No one mentioned religious dogmas. I may not be personally able to prove that it is immoral to have sex outside of reproductive purposes. As long as give you my best effort, I don't care if my premise is accepted or not. It doesn't change reality.

First off, sex is intended for reproduction, just like drinking is done to quench your thirst. Sure, you may be able to drink and enjoy the taste of the drink, but drinking merely because of the taste and not because of one's thirst is gluttony, just like sex merely for the pleasure and not for reproduction is unchaste.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]That's an evasion, not an explanation ;)Genetic_Code

Yes I know, but the truth is I don't have an explanation. 

 So are you saying there are only two moral options? 1. No sex for pleasure only. OR 2. Sex is ok as long as the couple dont try to stop the fertilization process. Since you have brought up drinks in the discussion may I ask is it immoral to like stuffs other than water such as some fuzzy drinks that do more than quenching thirst? Is it immoral to eat something i really like just because i am not hungry? Why do you think its ok to take the fun factor out of all these activities?7guns

Yes, every little thing can be viewed from an ethical attitude, including eating unhealthy snacks or merely walking the dog.

But a killers instinct leads to the death of someone. Does homosexuality lead to some kind of harm imposed to other people?Teenaged

It depreciates the value of a relationship. A relationship should be non-physical, not consisting of merely physical attributes.

And the point is not solid. I clearly mentioned that it is psychologically violent without a justified reason.Teenaged

I'm aware that was asserted, but mere assertion does not make it true.

In the killer's instinct you have the reason that you are preventing something horrible: a murder/kill. What are you preventing in homosexuality? Nothing.Teenaged

An act of depreciated value is being prevented.

So this is another unfair equalisation. (Is equivocation the best word in stead of equalisation? because I saw you use it)Teenaged

Of course it's unfair. It wasn't intended to be precisely accurate. Sex isn't death and vice versa. 

Again the notion that marriage is designed for reproduction purposes only is established by modern religions, and that says nothing about the reality of marriage, which as I said is an act of commitment and a proof of love. Not a ceremony that magically renders what's going in your bedroom, holy.Teenaged

Name one religion that establishes sex for only reproduction.

So the bottomline is: morality, and a reasonable one, is based on things brought upon others: harm, violence (either physical or psychological). The killer is justifiably considered immoral and should be suppressed because he would harm the people around him (kill them, or injure them in his efforts), while a homosexual is unjustifiably suppressed since he/she hurts no one.Teenaged

The homosexual is not being suppressed by someone else. The homosexual has to make the decision him or herself to not engage in sex. Homosexuality can only hurt the individuals involved in the act, not anyone else, but the same holds true for not wearing a seat belt. Furthermore, by not wearing a seatbelt, it sends a signal to others who look up to that individual that it's okay to not wear a seat belt too, so inadvertently, people's lives are being put at risk, whether it's viewed upon from a materialistic perspective or not. It's still unethical. 

I really didn't expect such gross equalisations to be used, sorry.Teenaged

No need to apologize although I personally am somewhat offended at some accusations. If I've thrown words at you that could've been better worded, then I apologize for that too.

You said that homosexuals actually can get married, it's just that they can only get married to the people of the opposite sex (trying to establish the fact that they are not being wronged since they canget married). Didn't you say that because you believe that that's what they should do?Teenaged

I was referring to how it currently is in the U.S. Not how it should be. 

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]That's an evasion, not an explanation ;)ChiliDragon

Yes I know, but the truth is I don't have an explanation. 

Objectively speaking, if an act does not promote the wellness of an indvidual's life then it is unethical, whether it's as trivial as talking on the cell phone and driving at the same time or something as significant as genocide. Every individual act can be judged objectively.

This is why I'm eagarly waiting Gabu's response because his response may change my viewpoint some. Oh, and there is some ew factor involved but I try to leave that out as to my main stance against it. I just view the ew factor as adding insult to injury.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure everybody. 

Gabu, do you have the demographics of the individuals who engaged in sex and reported healthy benefits. Were they individuals in a monogamous relationship and of an opposite sex of the partner or were other factors taken into consideration? I think this will best refine my point before going into my next point, assuming of course that I'm wrong on the subject, which I won't rule out. Any sources will be nice.Genetic_Code

You can find an article on the matter here. It's all pretty common-sense stuff, really. Sex is pleasurable, which helps with relaxation, sleep patterns, and the maintenance of a healthy relationship; it's physically active, which helps burn calories and improve cardiovascular health (although stress relief and the lowered blood pressure it carries with it helps here as well); and it even seemed to help with the production of disease antibodies.

This is all inherent in the action of sex itself - having a healthy relationship will obviously compound these effects whereas having an unhealthy relationship will mitigate the effects, and having sex with many people will obviously increase your risk of STDs, too, but that's an entirely different side of things apart from the physical and mental benefits regular sexual activity brings.

Objectively speaking, if an act does not promote the wellness of an indvidual's life then it is unethical, whether it's as trivial as talking on the cell phone and driving at the same time or something as significant as genocide. Every individual act can be judged objectively.

Genetic_Code