Engaging in

[Guest Aluigi]

ok, so you think the government recognizing homosexual unions is how the government establishes justice, promotes the general welfare, and secures the Blessings of Liberty?

debunking liberty (start with the easiest to debunk): this is not a question of whether or not a person is given the right to do anything they want, people can have homosexual relationships if they want to. that liberty (in the american definition of the word) is secure and will not be further secured by the government's recognition of the marriage.

debunking general welfare: you have yet to contest the evidence that we have put forth that homosexual activity is unhealthy, in fact you have stated you are personally against homosexual activity because of that kind of stuff I think. the fact that it is unhealthy shows it is against the general welfare of society

debunking establishing justice: how is it just to give the same amount of recognition to a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple? homosexual activity is contrary to public welfare, so how can it be justly deserving of the same privledges as heterosexual activity which has not been shown as contrary to public welfare? i submit that such recognition would be injust

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 20 2004, 08:26 PM']


edit: or since I think you might go back to constitutionality and what they thought (much like the bible and what early church fathers thouht) : it does not equate to what's constitutional either. as the things they thought have since been determined unconstitutional. [/quote]
If something is in the Constitution, and this is later changed by others, I would say the changes are indeed "unconstitutional." This is a major problem with modern American law. The Constitution was set up to preserve certain standards of law, and hold the powers of the branches of government in check. If the Constitution can just be changed to whatever people want it to say, the "evolving document" theory, then there is no point in even having a constitution. Liberals have trashed what was originally written in the Constitution, and twisted it beyond recognition. This is a travesty.

However, that is a side point. I realize the Constitution and other founding documents do not address homosexual "marriage" directly, since that abomination is a very recent concept. I was merely proving your claim that "gay rights is what America was made for" is false and absurd. The only things the founding fathers wrote concerning homosexuality show them to be firmly against it, and they recognized and accepted state laws against homosexuality.

The issue is natural law. I think Aluigi is handling this well. Listen to what he says.

[Guest Aluigi]

thanks Socrates.

dairygirl, do you have anything left to say?

[dairygirl4u2c]

If you're going to give the liberty to straight couples to marry but not to homosexuals in a legal recognition then you have not debunked justice. Maybe I'm using liberty wrong I dunno.

[quote]If something is in the Constitution, and this is later changed by others, I would say the changes are indeed "unconstitutional." This is a major problem with modern American law. The Constitution was set up to preserve certain standards of law, and hold the powers of the branches of government in check. If the Constitution can just be changed to whatever people want it to say, the "evolving document" theory, then there is no point in even having a constitution. Liberals have trashed what was originally written in the Constitution, and twisted it beyond recognition. This is a travesty. [/quote]

I am not saying the constitution is evolving. I am saying the laws that stem from them are. They are modified as needed.

[quote]However, that is a side point. I realize the Constitution and other founding documents do not address homosexual "marriage" directly, since that abomination is a very recent concept. I was merely proving your claim that "gay rights is what America was made for" is false and absurd. The only things the founding fathers wrote concerning homosexuality show them to be firmly against it, and they recognized and accepted state laws against homosexuality[/quote]

And this is why I was talking about slavery and woman suffrage. Back in the days of the constitution, even the fathers had slaves and didn't allow women to vote; they thought that those things were right. Since then, those laws of been abolished as unconstitutional. By your logic, the current laws regarding slavery and woman suffrage are unconstitutional.


I think the fact that I don't think that homosexual acts are necessarily unreasonable, as far as natural law to the point of allowing them recognition, is a value judgement. I believe the sincerity of them when they think that it is natrual for them to do that and believe that they could possibly be right. I hold that natural law says that in this kind of situation, you should allow them the dignity and recognition they deserve. If you think otherwise, that is your perogative. If you agree with my assesment about how it's applied to natural law, but go against it for theological reasons, then that's also your perogative.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree unless I'm missing something.

Edited November 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

so you're not going to reply to my argument? simply shrug it off and say you don't believe me? counter my arguments or something, come on!

i contend that every single person in the United States has the same "liberty" which is the ability to do whatever one wants in the American definition of the word. this has nothing to do with what the government promotes and/or recognizes. i submit to you that gay people do have the right to marry, using the same argument that has been brought up saying the Church wouldn't have to recognize the marriages etc. etc., guess what? there's religions out there that currently do recognize the marriages. gay people get married in this country, it's a question of whether the government ought to promote and/or recognize marriage. the liberty is secure, now does the government promote it and recognize it? therefore the question moves to is it good for the general welfare? we have consistantly shown that it is not in this thread, and you have yet to show us wrong or even make the claim that we are wrong with some sort of backing.

you have to prove to me either that it is good for the general welfare or that it is just in order to say this is what America was founded for. you have not countered my arguments which say it is injust and bad for the general welfare. if you really want to argue liberty, pick it up, but argue against my point (which is that the "liberty" is secure for people to do what they want and marry who they want. it's a question of what the government ought to promote/recognize)

i look forward to an actual counter argument or some sort of worthy response?

-Pax-

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 21 2004, 06:38 PM'] If you're going to give the liberty to straight couples to marry but not to homosexuals in a legal recognition then you have not debunked justice. Maybe I'm using liberty wrong I dunno.



I am not saying the constitution is evolving. I am saying the laws that stem from them are. They are modified as needed.



And this is why I was talking about slavery and woman suffrage. Back in the days of the constitution, even the fathers had slaves and didn't allow women to vote; they thought that those things were right. Since then, those laws of been abolished as unconstitutional. By your logic, the current laws regarding slavery and woman suffrage are unconstitutional.


I think the fact that I don't think that homosexual acts are necessarily unreasonable, as far as natural law to the point of allowing them recognition, is a value judgement. I believe the sincerity of them when they think that it is natrual for them to do that and believe that they could possibly be right. I hold that natural law says that in this kind of situation, you should allow them the dignity and recognition they deserve. If you think otherwise, that is your perogative. If you agree with my assesment about how it's applied to natural law, but go against it for theological reasons, then that's also your perogative.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree unless I'm missing something. [/quote]
Once more, you have failed to make any argument, other than asserting your own opinion.

You're simply going in circles. At the beginning of the debate, we argued that homosexual "unions" are contrary to the laws of God and nature, and are dangerous and unhealthy to those involved.

To these arguments, you somewhat conceded, but responded that gay marriage is "what America was made for." When I proved this false, you respond by arguing about slavery, etc., but have given no logical reasons why gay "marriage" should receive legal recognition.

Sodomy is a sin and a vice, and does not create new human life as married love can, and does no good for those involved. You yourself compared it to "eating dirt."
It therefore does not deserve "dignity and recognition."

You have failed to provide any positive reasons why gay marriage is in accord with natural law. All you have said, in essence is gay "marriage" should have legal recognition because you and others think it should.

By this logic, anything and everything should have legal recognition.

Dairy, all your arguments with everbody on this site are the same. You assert an opinion, fail to respond to any arguments against it or provide any rational arguments for your own position, then conclude by saying that "we should agree to disagree." Honestly, what is the point or purpose of such "argumentation"?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Dairy, all your arguments with everbody on this site are the same. You assert an opinion, fail to respond to any arguments against it or provide any rational arguments for your own position, then conclude by saying that "we should agree to disagree." Honestly, what is the point or purpose of such "argumentation"?[/quote]
If you mean what's the point of being not being rationale, there is none. But I am being rational so that doesn't apply to me.

If you mean what's the point of agreeing to disagree, then you just don't understand basic values. At a certain point, people's have beliefs values or what have you that don't agree with others. If after covering all the arguemnts regarding why one should change and nothing changes, then you should agree to disagree.

Even if I said the sky was blue and you said it was pink, I'd eventually agree to disagree after argumentation was given.

Otherwise you're disagreeing about disagreeing! Well, maybe I could see this? I seriouly need to think about that one.


[quote]You yourself compared it to "eating dirt." [/quote]

I personally am inclined to think that it's not right, but I understand others who think that it's good. I even accept that I might be wrong that it's not right. As such, I hold that natural law says that in this kind of situation, it is a moral imperative to legally recognize other people's morals when it is reasonable. [i] As this is the essense of my argument, please respond to this arguement.[/i]

But first.

Animals do gay acts. Is this natural law? I don't know, but I'd not argue if you said it was. They love each other. I think that they love each other some connections in the natural law.

Now I know what you're going to say as you guys always do. You're going to say that so if people want to marry pigs, we should let them? Of course, as always, I did not say that. I don't think that's reasonable. Yes it's a case by case thing and I know it's not black and white like you like.

[quote]but have given no logical reasons why gay "marriage" should receive legal recognition[/quote]
I think the purpose of marriage is love. You think it's love and creating life. Why should we recognize marriage at all? If we do for one group of people, we should for all.

[quote]Sodomy is a sin and a vice, and does not create new human life as married love can, and does no good for those involved. [/quote]

You're right that objectively it creates new life, but we disagree with the criteria for marriage. It's a fact that they profess to love each other. So beyond that all you're doing is asserting opinions too.

Give me one thing that you are doing that is different than me.

Edited November 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

please, i want to continue the discussion of whether it is "what America was made for".. will you adress my argument?

[dairygirl4u2c]

the same arguments could be applied to regular marraige as well al. what would you say if i applied that argument to regular marriage? people would still have kids. they could have the liberty to marry in private.

also when you allow one but not the other then that's not just.

i don't respond as thoroughly to your posts I'm sorry. it seems that you're arguing about things like justice, liberty, and such that are so abstract that they have no real meanings.

if you disagree, then look to philosophies and more practially look to the legal system. laws say do or don't do this in a reasonable manner. Who decides what's reasonable? the exectutive branch. who decides even still what the exectutive decides? the judical system based on the judges. and even they have to interpret each other.

[Guest Aluigi]

what would i say? hmm.. it'd be interesting to see, but all you did was claim you could make the argument not actually made the argument.

i'm arguing why the constitution was made. the government's promotion/ recognition of heterosexual mariage promotes the general welfare. that's the reason for the government- to secure liberty (it is secure, we are using the american definition of liberty letting people do whatever they want). to establish justice, and to promote the general welfare. it's not about using abstract terms, it's about using them the way the founding fathers used them.

so here we go, you've basically admitted to the idea that homosexuality wouldn't be for the general welfare. seeing as i've shown that people can and do marry homosexually, you cannot argue that it would be securing a liberty (the liberty exists.). this is a question of whether the government should recognize/promote a specific action (an action that is allowed, though it is against the general welfare which is why it's not promoted)

America was not made for this. the government has secured the liberty for these people to do whatever they want, but when it's a question of what they should promote, the government should promote that which is good for the general welfare. you have conceded homosexuality is not good for the general welfare of people, so why do you believe America was made for the government to recognize and promote with benefits homosexuality?

[SirMyztiq]

It's sad. "America was made for..." That statement has caused an on going attack the same way Bush based his campaign. A single and misunderstood line that will be the defining factor of somebody's intelligence.

America wasn't made for anything. And if by "America" you mean the Constitution then the constitution was made a long time ago. A LONG time ago. Long are the days of racism and prejudice. Long are the days of total Christian mindset. Long are the days where Christians said jump and the people said "how high". America was made to protect liberty, ensure justice and promote equality. The Constitution never EVEN addressed the issue of marriage. But the Consitution is open and it was intended to be open so that throughout time and changes it would be modified in order to strenghthen equality and liberty. The whole "necessary and proper" clause rings a bell.

What we have here isn't an issue of money, power or even respect(well actually there is no respect when it comes to conservatives attacking gays) We have people like Aluigi saying that homosexuality is unhealthy. Yeah I mean they did start AIDS right!? And it was a punishment for God right!? Stupidity and near-sightness at it's finest.

[url="http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc20uuanswr.pdf"]http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc20uuanswr.pdf[/url]

Tell me how is homosexuality healthy or unhealthy? Enlighten me with a list of gender-oriented specific diseases.

Natural and God's law?

God's law. WHO CARES? NOBODY asked Christians for their opinion. Nobody asked Christians to accept homosexuality. Christians just felt threatened and they had to put an end to the government doing it's job and ignoring what the Christians have to say by putting pressure on the president. Christianity has been heavily divided with the issue so before you try to fix the world why don't you try to fix your own first?

Natural law. What is natural law? That men and women are supposed to have sex in order to reproduce and that only that combination can cause reproduction? News flash! It has nothing to do with it! They aren't asking nature to allow men to have babies with another guy.

General welfare of society huh?
Since when has society been healthy?
Let's see. High divorce rate? Check. Priest engaging in homosexual acts with children and then having the Church cover it up? Check. Heroin plants in Afghanistan that get their money from Americans? Check. Racism and prejudice? Check.

All the signs of a healthy American society.

Then we have Socrates putting the old but always useful stamp of "I'm better than you because I said so" that many Christians who profess their believes seem to have.

Homosexuality is a sin and vice. According to who?
If you say the entire human population then a point for you.
If you say the Bible then minus a point for you and minus forty points for your narrowminded statement.

Married love create babies right? ALL MARRIAGES ARE MADE OF LOVE RIGHT?!
Please tell me I'm right? Is that why there is such a high divorce rate? Or is that why domestic violence is so rampant?

Dude don't blind yourself with your ego. You don't define love and marriage to the ability of having children. There is always adoption. Gays CAN love and they aren't asking you to accept it. They aren't asking you to let the Church accept it. All they want is the right to have a joint financial and social status. They want to be able to go to the hospital and be able to see their couple without having to wait for a relative to get there. They want to be able to claim taxes the same way a heterosexual couple can. THAT'S IT!!

They aren't asking you to join them.
They aren't asking you to watch them.
They aren't asking you to approve of it.

They want equality and a way to show each other that THEY are truly in love and that THEY are willing to be together LEGALLY. Notice how none of that affects you.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

ok. I'm going to play devil's advocate here in a weird way....

Let's just assume that SirMystic is right in his last post there.

Fine. Whatever.


We believe that people with same-sex attraction are people too with the rights and privledges of all people.

Let's just give up on trying to legislate them - they're human and going to do whatever they want anyway.

We spend so much time and effort fighting it - why not let them do what they want?

All we can do is let them know of our disapproval (assuming they ask), admonish them and pray that they repent and don't end up in Hell.

Should we "shake the dust" from the situation and walk away to spend time, effort and energy on more worthwhile things?

[Balthazor]

I have sometimes thought about this myself....mainly I am miffed because it seems that our biggest worry in our government is same sex marriage. I don't support or want same sex marriage to be a part of my society but somehow I get the feeling that our time and energy and could be better spent on more productive ventures.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Nov 22 2004, 04:59 AM'] ok.  I'm going to play devil's advocate here in a weird way....

Let's just assume that SirMystic is right in his last post there.

Fine.  Whatever.


We believe that people with same-sex attraction are people too with the rights and privledges of all people.

Let's just give up on trying to legislate them - they're human and going to do whatever they want anyway.

We spend so much time and effort fighting it - why not let them do what they want?

All we can do is let them know of our disapproval (assuming they ask), admonish them and pray that they repent and don't end up in Hell.

Should we "shake the dust" from the situation and walk away to spend time, effort and energy on more worthwhile things? [/quote]


For the same reason that we don't let brothers and sisters marry, or give permission to fathers to rape their daughters at puberty. For the same reason we have consent laws, or child abuse laws.
We don't let people have three wives or four husbands [ now that is a thought ] at one time.

Its wrong.

If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever.

Edited November 22, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:01 AM'] If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever. [/quote]
That is an excellent point Cmom! Thank you!

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:01 AM']

For the same reason that we don't let brothers and sisters marry, or give permission to fathers to rape their daughters at puberty. For the same reason we have consent laws, or child abuse laws.
We don't let people have three wives or four husbands [ now that is a thought ] at one time.

Its wrong.

If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever. [/quote]
How does allowing marriage between gay couples suddenly open up to raping, incest and people wanting to marry a hog?

Explain to me how that would happen.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 22 2004, 01:28 PM'] How does allowing marriage between gay couples suddenly open up to raping, incest and people wanting to marry a hog?

Explain to me how that would happen. [/quote]
Essentially because it reduces sex to a selfish, physical-pleasure-seeking act.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Essentially because it reduces sex to a selfish, physical-pleasure-seeking act. [/quote]

that's wrong on the level that the sex is a union of the love the homosexual share.

[quote]How does allowing marriage between gay couples suddenly open up to raping, incest and people wanting to marry a hog?

Explain to me how that would happen. [/quote]

at least someone understands me! lol

but to clarify, if people want to allow those bad things, that's there perogative. i'm not going to stand for it as i don't think it's reasonable.

i want you to explain how i all of the sudden have to think those are reasonable.


Also, I'd still like soc to explain to me how what he's doing is different than what I am.

Edited November 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

you wanna know why it'd happen? because of PRECEDENCE. There are already polygamists preparing their legal fights, pedophiles preparing for their legal fights (ever heard of a little organization from hell called NAMBLA?)

don't dismiss the constitution, it tells the government what it is supposed to do! it's about the government's role, the government is to promote the general welfare. listing off a list of vices that plague the country and saying society isn't healthy doesn't change the fact that the government's role is to promote the general welfare. the constitution is the foundation for the government, the guideline for what it should do when any new issue comes up. the government should know it's purpose, and its purpose is laid out in the pramble to the Constitution of the United States.
why do we have a government in the united states?[list]
[*]to form a more perfect Union
[*]establish Justice
[*]insure domestic Tranquillity
[*]provide for the common defence
[*]promote the general Welfare
[*]secure the Blessings of Liberty
[/list]
if any of these purposes for the government are outdated, let me know. all you've said is that racism and prejudice are outdated and apparently Christianity is as well according to you. but the general reason for the government to exist is the same

homosexuality is unhealthy physically and psychologically

[quote]The Archives of Internal Medicine, "Homosexually active men are significantly more likely to report syphilis and less likely to present with primary syphilis than heterosexual men."

New England Journal of Medicine, "At least 80 percent of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectal or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectal or enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39 percent of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms."

Harrisonís Principles of Internal Medicine, "In one New York Study, all nontraveled immunocompetent males with giardiasis were, in fact, homosexual."

New England Journal of Medicine, "Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus."

The Journal of the American Medical Association, "among men, report of any lifetime homosexual activity was associated with an elevated risk for HSV-2 [herpes simplex virus - 2]."

American Journal of Medicine,"... heterosexual men in a sexually transmitted disease clinic have a substantially lower prevalence of cytomegalovirus seropositivity than do homosexual men."

The Centers for Disease Control reveal that homosexuals make up 80 percent of all AIDS cases in America. Heterosexual contact accounts for only 8 percent of the cases.

In addition, the rate of suicide attempts among homosexuals is three times higher than that of normal males.[/quote]

Some say the suicide thing is just because they are exposed to so much intolerance and prejudice. talk to those same people about suicide while not bringing up homosexuals and you'll hear that people who commit suicide have chemical imbalances. homosexual tendencies are the result of developemental problems, the search for love and acceptance amoung peers of the same gender (natural at a young age, you see it all the time they think the other gender has cooties, it's called polarization) is lacking during their upbringing, this natural desire lingers and is still with them at puberty, the desire shifts to a sexual nature. this is a problem in their developement that has led to a chemical imbalance.

for the United States Government to recognize and promote with benefits same sex unions would be promoting something that is not good for the general welfare, thereby doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do. yes, the government is still bound by the constitution, the high offices all swear to uphold and defend it, cheif justices interpret it, and congress makes new laws to current event issues by its power.

[Guest Aluigi]

also, with dairygirl she has already conceded that homosexual behavior isn't healthy, but that she didn't think it shouldn't be recognized. therefore, my argument to her stands that government recognition of same sex unions would be government promotion of them, which is contrary to the general welfare, so it should not be promoted by the government. i have a feeling sirmystiq will continue arguing homosexuality as not unhealthy, i hope he will not continue disregarding the constitution and admit that if it was then it would be something the government shouldn't promote.

-Pax-