Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Two questions from me, Omega:
1) Why couldn't one "fully appreciate the gift of companionship, which sex psychologically helps build" in a permanent between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman?
2) Why would sex "lose much of its intended meaning" or be "quite damaging" in same-gender marriages and not in heterosexual ones? Most of us don't have it to procreate, after all, so I'm a little mystified as to how sex could ever be MORE "harmful" to gays, married or otherwise, than to straight people.
Oh, and a third: why should your way of life have preferential status over all others?
[ February 25, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Easy answer. It shouldn't. I'm actually rather fond of Omega's idea. Strip all legal and financial recognition of all marriages, civil unions, common-law relationships, etc. Let the government recognise everyone as independent and equal persons, married or otherwise.
Let the people and whatever organsations that want to deal with it, deal with it on their own. I like it a lot
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Cartman's first two questions are basically the same: why would homosexual activity be wrong? Because that's not how life is designed to be lived. I can derrive pleasure from many things, but true meaning can only come from something greater than pleasure. Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman. Properly, it does so. Used outside of that context, it can either cause emotional harm, or simply cheapen sex to the point that it can no longer form said bond. It's not about pleasure OR procreation. It's about fellowship.
As to why my way of life should have preferential status over all others, my answer is that this way of life was the one created by the author of life. You may not believe that, but the original quesiton was about my opinion, after all.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm awaiting Jeff storming into this thread and breathing his flames of anger everywhere...
But, I will offer my own answer to that last question: Omega believes that his way of life should have preferential treatment over others because he's human. We all believe it, to a certain extent. We all believe that our way of life is better than that of, say, a murderer. It's just that the boundaries start to blur when you get to "smaller" matters.
Society is about compromise. Everyone wants things done a way that pleases them. This obviously can't be done. So we elect people that agree with most of what we agree with. And ignore that which doesn't really affect us. Which is pretty much what Omega's done here. Marriage to him is a religious thing. He realises that to a lot of other people it isn't. So he suggests a compromise position which puts everyone on an equal footing. The sex stuff is largely irrelevent.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman.
Funny, I was under the impression that sex, by design, was intended to provide a more efficient way of spreading mutations (and thus driving evolutionary change) within a population of living organisms.
Actually, "by design" and "intended" may be omitted.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Sex is for making babies. That's pretty much it. The concept of monogamy is quite rare, even in the animal kingdom alone.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman. Properly, it does so. Used outside of that context, it can either cause emotional harm, or simply cheapen sex to the point that it can no longer form said bond. It's not about pleasure OR procreation. It's about fellowship.
Setting aside the point that sex has only one biological purpose (which is to ensure the survival of the species and nothing else), I again have to ask why it couldn't just as well form a psychological bond between one man and one man or between one woman and one woman, why it would cause emotional harm when used out of man-woman context, or why it would be cheapened by non penis-in-vagina activities. Don't say "it's not how life is intended to be lived", because that's a circular non-answer.
As to why my way of life should have preferential status over all others, my answer is that this way of life was the one created by the author of life.
But that author of life also created homosexuality, so yet again, why should your way of life be the preferred one?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What really burns me is that I can not get my fiance covered on my insurance because we aren't married, or of the same sex.....
Some insurance companies and big businesses, are anti unmarried heteroseuxal couples and need to be sued....
I don't believe the government should limit the freedoms of anyone, but, then problem is where to draw the line on which freedoms are to be made illegal and which are, at minimum, tolerated.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Freedoms that dont harm anyone should be accepted: homosexual relationships and marriage stemming from those relationships are merely offensive to a large, influential group of religous people. The seperation between church and state should insure the rights of gay people to marry and live as they want with equal protection and benifits under the law.
Buuut....the people in office are elected (fairly or not) and cater to the whims of both their party and what polls tell them he majority of voters want- regardless on the constitution's intent.
To make a diffrence we have to vote for he most likely candidate to oust Bush. ...but wait! Kerry said yesterday that he's against gay marriage! So even if Bush takes a walk,the legislation might pass as Kerry mends fences with the religous right and the republican party.
posted
I may be wrong, but Omega's point seems to be that the religious and economical versions of "marriage" should be kept seperate.
There's no reason to seperate a man/man relationship from a man/woman relationship financially, so it should be treated the same. If relgious people don't believe in the concept of a homosexual marriage, then that's their right. But that should not be allowed into the constitution, and it should not have any bearing on how it is treated socially and economically.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman. Properly, it does so. Used outside of that context, it can either cause emotional harm, or simply cheapen sex to the point that it can no longer form said bond. It's not about pleasure OR procreation. It's about fellowship.
You imply that such psychological bond is not possible between same sex couples, but I don't think it is possible for you to know unless you've experienced it, just as people may say that love doesn't last if they themselves are in a lackluster marriage. I mean, if sex between homosexual couples doesn't create a psychological (tho I prefer to say spiritual) bond, how do you explain the couples who have stay together for decades without legal or social benefits to do so? Or does "the other guy" work in mysterious ways as well?
While I agree that sex is about fellowship (which results in pleasure and procreation), I think that it cheapens sex more to regard it as shameful outside the marriage context. True, sex can be more easily abused outside of marriage, but I see so many Christians put shame around it that I find it difficult to believe a shame so engrained would disappear overnight (literally). And how are they to have the psychological bond if the glue is weak?
posted
*rolls eyes* A spiritual bond? From just sex? I'm sure humans derive as much spiriual benefit from sex as rabbits do.
quote: I may be wrong, but Omega's point seems to be that the religious and economical versions of "marriage" should be kept seperate.
There's no reason to seperate a man/man relationship from a man/woman relationship financially, so it should be treated the same. If relgious people don't believe in the concept of a homosexual marriage, then that's their right. But that should not be allowed into the constitution, and it should not have any bearing on how it is treated socially and economically.
Exactly, but even if we accept gay marriage, you have got to realise that the government would be walking into the moral equivalent of a quagmire. As someone pointed out, the only reason we rule out polygamy is due to Christian beliefs, so that would be next on the chopping block. What about incest? Yes, its "icky" to think about siblings marrying and having children but genetically its no worse than say two people who are guaranteed to have gentically defective children. i.e. just to pick randomly, we don't ban two people with Down's syndrome from having children although its probably guaranteed to be passed on Or just skip the whole issue by propossing the following question: Should it be legal for two brothers to marry? What about the same sex parent and child?
Yes, I'm being a bit extreme here, but practically any governmental definition we end up for marriage , whether we allow gay marriage or not, is likely to be logically full of holes and legal nightmares.
quote: Funny, I was under the impression that sex, by design, was intended to provide a more efficient way of spreading mutations (and thus driving evolutionary change) within a population of living organisms.
Perfect, and thats why we don't reproduce asexually, boys and girls.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *rolls eyes* A spiritual bond? From just sex? I'm sure humans derive as much spiriual benefit from sex as rabbits do.
Well, I suppose it depends on how you are classifying "spiritual" here. Something specifically to do with god, or "merely" something that seems to affect you on a deep and personal level? Besides, it strikes me that it all really depends on the person, and how it affects them. Different people will have different opinions on it, because it is a rather personal thing. Some people do it with everyone, and to them it's just something to do that's quite fun. Others only do it with one person, and for them it's (suppossed to be) a deeply spiritual and sacred thing. And everyone else falls somewhere inbetween those two camps.
quote: Yes, I'm being a bit extreme here, but practically any governmental definition we end up for marriage , whether we allow gay marriage or not, is likely to be logically full of holes and legal nightmares.
True. But then that's society as a whole...a tricky balancing act between pleasing as many people as possible while avoiding hurting as many people as possible. And stuff to do with freedom and non-anarchy and all that. So, yeah, if you allowed gay marriages, then people would start clambering for multi-people marriages.
Or would they? I mean, the number of homosexual people is, what, 1 in 12, or something? That's a far greater number I'll wager than the number who'd demand to polygomous relationships.
quote:Perfect, and thats why we don't reproduce asexually, boys and girls.
Well, sort of. The advantage of sexual reproduction is the spreading of genetic variance through a population, but it's primary purpose is still producing offspring.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic