Homosexual Living Together

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1110573' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:10 AM']
You know sadly enough, I dont believe that because, its always homosexuals who are rude to me and treat me with great ill. Plus, what do homosexuals expect? They are going againt nature. Its only natural to other humans to be offended by this, religion or not.
[/quote]

You might be offended but that gives you no call to be rude.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111092' date='Nov 4 2006, 05:37 PM']
I don't feel the need to be humble when confronted with arrogance such as yours. But hey, I guess typing a few words into google is a proper substitute for years of study.
[/quote]
How many years of study have I had?

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals? blink.gif

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111362' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:10 PM']
How many years of study have I had?
[/quote]

I don't know, why don't you tell me? I'd be happy to hear your history credentials.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111364' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:11 PM']
I don't know, why don't you tell me? I'd be happy to hear your history credentials.
[/quote]
No need to tell you. You already know me.

Given your credentials are so high, why not show me its power by stop avoid the subject of the thread?

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals? blink.gif

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

P.S. Google is an excellent research tool.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111369' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:14 PM']
No need to tell you. You already know me.

Given your credentials are so high, why not show me its power by stop avoid the subject of the thread?

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals? blink.gif

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

P.S. Google is an excellent research tool.
[/quote]

Google is not an excellent research tool. It's a good search engine, however most websites have quite a bit of misinformation. Wikipedia I find to be tolerable most of the time, but it isn't the kind of source you put in your papers.

Clearly, you have no credentials as you won't state them. I don't think you understand a thing about history, and I think you were just baiting me on the subject. As to the points enumerated above, we have discussed them ad nauseum. You have twisted my words and brought nothing new to the table. I'm no longer going to engage in this immature discussion.

[Aloysius]

Good Research Tool: [url="http://scholar.google.com/"]http://scholar.google.com/[/url]
Bad Research Tool: [url="http://www.google.com/"]http://www.google.com/[/url]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111372' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:18 PM']
Google is not an excellent research tool. It's a good search engine, however most websites have quite a bit of misinformation. Wikipedia I find to be tolerable most of the time, but it isn't the kind of source you put in your papers.[/quote]
I find research requires searching. Do references fall into your lap in your research?

[quote]Clearly, you have no credentials as you won't state them. I don't think you understand a thing about history, and I think you were just baiting me on the subject. As to the points enumerated above, we have discussed them ad nauseum. You have twisted my words and brought nothing new to the table. I'm no longer going to engage in this immature discussion.
[/quote]
If this thread was titled "kamiller42's academic credentials", I would entertain your request for credential review. I find the entire credential discussion to be a red herring as you are unable to refute my points. Your continued dodges are not unnoticed.

I congratulated you on your diploma. It would be interesting to see that knowledge put to use in these forums one day. Until then, exercise patience and charity and keep the haughtiness on a leash.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111389' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:35 PM']
I find research requires searching. Do references fall into your lap in your research?
If this thread was titled "kamiller42's academic credentials", I would entertain your request for credential review. I find the entire credential discussion to be a red herring as you are unable to refute my points. Your continued dodges are not unnoticed.

I congratulated you on your diploma. It would be interesting to see that knowledge put to use in these forums one day. Until then, exercise patience and charity and keep the haughtiness on a leash.
[/quote]

I was putting that knowledge to use on these forums before you ever joined them and I still am. Take a look at the threads in the last week since I've been back concerning medieval history. You need to learn respect for others, tolerance, charity, and how to speak to people without a smug, self-superior attitude.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1109857' date='Nov 3 2006, 12:34 PM']
but does the nature of a civil union have to be sexual?

can't it just be material, I want these benefits for my best friend?
[/quote]

Show me one that's not, aside from the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=47804"]upcoming Adam Sandler "gay fireman" movie[/url].

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1111380' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:27 PM']
Good Research Tool: [url="http://scholar.google.com/"]http://scholar.google.com/[/url]
Bad Research Tool: [url="http://www.google.com/"]http://www.google.com/[/url]
[/quote]
I guess it depends on what you are researching. If my research requires locating news articles, Google.com or news.google.com is a better choice. If I want an authority on a particular subject, scholar.google.com is better. What is nice about Google.com is that if you are searching on a topic and hits at its others sites, like scholar.google.com, exist, it'll show up at the top of google.com's search results. Pretty smart system.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111392' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:38 PM']
I was putting that knowledge to use on these forums before you ever joined them and I still am. Take a look at the threads in the last week since I've been back concerning medieval history. You need to learn respect for others, tolerance, charity, and how to speak to people without a smug, self-superior attitude.
[/quote]
I apologize for any occasion where I appeared arrogant.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111481' date='Nov 4 2006, 10:30 PM']
I apologize for any occasion where I appeared arrogant.
[/quote]

I'm sorry for losing my patience with you.

[Kosh]

Yo guys, can I throw in my two cents on this topic? I think that the state promoting gay marriage in any way shape or form (whether or not gay sex is actually occuring) is very very contrary to the common good.

There are a couple of reasons for this. It would degrade the vaule of marriage in our culture. God knows we don't need anymore of THAT. I also think a homosexual union provides a far less strong family than that of a normal marriage. I do not want case to case examples, I'm speaking generally.

Also, as has already been brought up, legalizing gay marriage opens the door to MANY, MANY less desirable things.

~T3h Kosh

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111490' date='Nov 4 2006, 10:42 PM']
Yo guys, can I throw in my two cents on this topic? I think that the state promoting gay marriage in any way shape or form (whether or not gay sex is actually occuring) is very very contrary to the common good.

There are a couple of reasons for this. It would degrade the vaule of marriage in our culture. God knows we don't need anymore of THAT. I also think a homosexual union provides a far less strong family than that of a normal marriage. I do not want case to case examples, I'm speaking generally.

Also, as has already been brought up, legalizing gay marriage opens the door to MANY, MANY less desirable things.

~T3h Kosh
[/quote]

Hey Kosh!

I think that the slippery slope argument doesn't really work in this case unless gay marriage was decided by supreme court decisions. In that case, people wouldn't have a chance to vote on marriage, and you might end up with some weird laws. However, if people are willing to accept gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily mean they will accept polygamy and the like. Whether or not that's intellectually honest doesn't enter into it a lot of times.

Secondly, it doesn't degrade the value of marriage in our culture. Marriage is different things to different people and I don't think you could come to a consensus on the subject. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. To a lot of secular liberals I know, marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals. In the case of that latter definition, gay marriage wouldn't change anything. Besides which, these marriages would all be performed by the state. I don't think anyone is advocated that the Catholic Church be required to perform gay weddings. At least, I hope not.

Finally, I'm still not buying the whole weaker family thing. I think it varies from marriage to marriage - gay or straight. Both no doubt have their problems.

[Kosh]

For your last point, thats why I was making a general statement, which I still think is true. Man/Woman is the natural sexual and familial state of man and will thus in general fair better than homosexual union.

And let me just define marriage: A union of a man and woman for love with openness to children. That should satisfy most everyone and is NOT a religious definition. The Sacramental part of it did not enter into my argument.

And why doesn't the slippery slope argument work? If we accept homosexual union, what principles do we still adhere to? Why couldn't we just okay polygamy (if everyone consents) or even marrying your dog, if the dog is cool with it.

That being said, 'sup KizlarAgha! Haven't debated with you in a while. Whats happenin'?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111496' date='Nov 4 2006, 10:54 PM']
For your last point, thats why I was making a general statement, which I still think is true. Man/Woman is the natural sexual and familial state of man and will thus in general fair better than homosexual union.

And let me just define marriage: A union of a man and woman for love with openness to children. That should satisfy most everyone and is NOT a religious definition. The Sacramental part of it did not enter into my argument.

And why doesn't the slippery slope argument work? If we accept homosexual union, what principles do we still adhere to? Why couldn't we just okay polygamy (if everyone consents) or even marrying your dog, if the dog is cool with it.

That being said, 'sup KizlarAgha! Haven't debated with you in a while. Whats happenin'?
[/quote]

Oh, you know me, slingin' ad hominems around like they're goin' outta fashion!

I don't think the slipper slope argument works because my dog isn't intellectually capable of being cool with marrying me. My dog isn't a person. My dog isn't a citizen. My dog doesn't have the same rights as human beings. That argument, for all its use, is a really really bad one.

As to the whole polygamy thing, I think if you're intellectually honest you would have to agree that polygamy is fine if gay marriage is fine. I try to be intellectually honest, so I admit that possibility. However, lots of liberal people are going to be hypocritical about it and the conservatives would vote against it, so I don't think it would be very likely that it would ever be an issue.

I didn't mean that your definition of marriage for the purposes of argument was a sacrament, I just mean many Catholics would consider it that. Many others wouldn't. The problem is that if you ask 30 people of 30 backgrounds what the definition of marriage is, you'll probably get a lot of different answers (probably not 30 though : ). So, which definition do we use? The problem with your definition is that if we says a union between two people for love with an openness to children it still works and it allows gays. Unless you were planning to outlaw all sterile marriages?

[Kosh]

yeah, that sounds like you.

The dog part was kinda a joke. But not entirely unheard of. But I would agree with your analysis of it.

And as for polygamy...I also hope I am intellectually honest and I think that if Gay Marriage is okay so is Polygamy. I think, however, that neither are.

I don't know what definition to use. Debates are so hard when people can't even agree on definitions. Most crucial part, in my opinion, of a debate.

That being said, I prefer mine.
Oh, need to reply/refute a couple stuff too: Mistyped above, meant to say between a man and a woman. srry. So my definition is "union between a man and a woman for love with openness to children". Sterile marriages are okay, b/c you gots adoption! A far better solution to pregnancy than abortion. Off topic, but whats your view on abortion anyway?

oh, and I prayed for you today. I know you don't think it does any good, but thats what I'm trying to help with.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Kosh

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111500' date='Nov 4 2006, 11:02 PM']
yeah, that sounds like you.

The dog part was kinda a joke. But not entirely unheard of. But I would agree with your analysis of it.

And as for polygamy...I also hope I am intellectually honest and I think that if Gay Marriage is okay so is Polygamy. I think, however, that neither are.

I don't know what definition to use. Debates are so hard when people can't even agree on definitions. Most crucial part, in my opinion, of a debate.

That being said, I prefer mine.
[/quote]

Well, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. Somehow I just don't see it happening. If gay marriage comes up for a vote in California...well...I don't vote. But I'd strongly consider voting for it. I know you would do the opposite in your case. Fortunately, I'm not gay so it doesn't make an iota of difference to me one way or the other.

[Kosh]

well thats your opinion, but if you only vote by things that affect you personally you ain't gonna vote that often.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1111503' date='Nov 4 2006, 11:06 PM']
well thats your opinion, but if you only vote by things that affect you personally you ain't gonna vote that often.
[/quote]

Well technically I can't vote anyway because I have an ID and a Social Security card with one name and such, and a birth certificate with another name and such. So... I should really fix that eventually...