Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Individuality-ness]

[citation needed]

They cannot engage in coitus.

I feel sorry for you. You don't seem to think that there's other ways to have sex other than penal-vaginal penetration.

[Grave_n_idle]

And homosexual partners can love each other and do all the same things as hetrosexual partners, minus the "have kids who share the same DNA with me and my partner", and anyways, that doesn't make their children less of a child. Point still stands.

We don't even have to go as far as children. Homosexual couples cannot copulate.

Copulate: "to engage in sexual intercourse"

Uh... yeah they can.

[Grenartia]

Here's the thing. Marriage, if we're being completely objective about it, is a property arrangement between either men or families, depending on the society.

At some point we, as civilized people, decided to change the definition. Not just gay people, all of us. To be about love, and companionship, codependency, and, yes, family too. But not any one of these things, and not necessarily all of them either.

Even if this is so, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot express their feelings for each other in the same ways.

Again, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

Homosexual is not natural .

Argument from nature is a logical fallacy. Also, I find it ironic that you're using something unnatural (a computer) to tell us all that homosexuality isn't natural (of course, this flies in the face of observed science anyways).

So nobody ought to do anything that would doom the species if everybody did it?

That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. For one thing, you've just denounced Jesus, as clearly the human race would die off if everyone was voluntarily martyred.

1. I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that it has been necessary for at least some people to be heterosexual. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not necessary.

2. Being martyred is not something that someone does; it is something that happens to someone.

How not?

To quote Harvey Milk, "God knows we keep trying." Even gays and lesbians acknowledge that they cannot express their feelings for each other in the same way that heterosexual couples can.

Of course, that quote is, in all likelihood, being taken completely out of context. Intellectual dishonesty, folks. Its a good thing when it supports YOUR argument.

Restrain people from doing certain acts=forced to do other acts. Way to say the same thing with different words. Should gays not be permitted to have sex or marry, because it offends your idea of religion?

I do not believe that homosexuals should be restrained from "marrying." Homosexuals are not being compelled to do or not to do anything. On the other hand, they wish to compel society to do something for them: to recognize their relationships.

Yes, because heaven forbid we should expect to get the same benefits for being in a committed relationship that heterosexual couples get.

Well, you did make an appeal to nature.

Yes I did

Again, that is a logical fallacy, and the claim itself is factually inaccurate.

[Anachronous Rex]

So would you support a law stating that if a couple cannot copulate, then they cannot get married?

Yes, I would.

In fact, most jurisdictions will annul marriages on request if the couple is never capable of copulating while married.

As if the paralyzed didn't have it hard enough.

It's amazing how cold you are. In defense of what, exactly?

[Flagsia]

If homosexuality is natural we all would be doing it , not just a few . And we would all be extinct now . And all the above posted about animals , are you an animal . Do you act like animal . If you want to copy animals than don't copy just one of their characteristic ,copy all of them , like some animals eating their young why don't you say it is natural and do it too.

By that definition heterosexuality isn't natural either.

If it was natural we would all be doing it, and there are homosexuals, so we're not.

Of course there is homosexuals because everything has irregularity. Nothings perfect. And the majority in this world are heterosexual . When homosexual has become the majority in this world than I would say that homosexuality is natural.

[Individuality-ness]

So would you support a law stating that if a couple cannot copulate, then they cannot get married?

Yes, I would.

In fact, most jurisdictions will annul marriages on request if the couple is never capable of copulating while married.

People do marry each other for reasons other than "make babies".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So would you support a law stating that if a couple cannot copulate, then they cannot get married?

Yes, I would.

In fact, most jurisdictions will annul marriages on request if the couple is never capable of copulating while married.

Certainly, upon the request of the parties involved. They don't forbid them from marrying in the first place, or staying together if they wish. I fail to see how your statement applies. So let me put it this way: Would you support a law that kept a man permanently paralyzed from the waist down (and unable to copulate) from marrying a woman if they wished to get married?

[Grave_n_idle]

[citation needed]

They cannot engage in coitus.

This is better, at least you picked a phrase that usually refers specifically to male-female intercourse.

But a homosexual man can have sex with a woman... and a homosexual woman can have sex with a man... so homosexuals can still engage in coitus.

[Anachronous Rex]

They cannot engage in coitus.

I feel sorry for you. You don't seem to think that there's other ways to have sex other than penal-vaginal penetration.

He's on the internet. He knows.

And I imagine he feels very bad about knowing, but somehow just can't stop himself from learning more.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

By that definition heterosexuality isn't natural either.

If it was natural we would all be doing it, and there are homosexuals, so we're not.

Of course there is homosexuals because everything has irregularity. Nothings perfect. And the majority in this world are heterosexual . When homosexual has become the majority in this world than I would say that homosexuality is natural.

Okay, so "majority" equals "natural"? Which means that "minority" equals "unnatural"? So...left-handers, redheads, people with crooked little fingers, and others with uncommon but not unheard of genetic traits are "unnatural"? Your definitions leave much to be desired, and have nothing to do with how the English language actually works.

[Christian Democrats]

So would you support a law stating that if a couple cannot copulate, then they cannot get married?

Those poor, poor quadriplegics.

Actually, a quadriplegic can copulate. It is easier for the female, but the male also can do it.

http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.mtKZKgMWKwG/b.4453431/k.A0C5/Sexuality_for_Men.htm

[Anachronous Rex]

By that definition heterosexuality isn't natural either.

If it was natural we would all be doing it, and there are homosexuals, so we're not.

Of course there is homosexuals because everything has irregularity. Nothings perfect. And the majority in this world are heterosexual . When homosexual has become the majority in this world than I would say that homosexuality is natural.

Let me get back to you once I've completed *dramatic pause* the GAY BOMB!

Now let's be serious, you're not really arguing that something is right because the majority of people do it, are you? That's going to haunt you if you think about it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Those poor, poor quadriplegics.

Actually, a quadriplegic can copulate. It is easier for the female, but the male also can do it.

http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.mtKZKgMWKwG/b.4453431/k.A0C5/Sexuality_for_Men.htm

All that your link states is that it's possible for some men, and even then it's a dicey proposition. You're still leaving out the vast majority of people with this issue in an attempt to defend your limited, outdated views of human relationships and sexuality.

[Anachronous Rex]

Those poor, poor quadriplegics.

Actually, a quadriplegic can copulate. It is easier for the female, but the male also can do it.

http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.mtKZKgMWKwG/b.4453431/k.A0C5/Sexuality_for_Men.htm

Amazing what science can do, isn't it?

You seem to not realize how close we are to homosexuals being able to have each others biological children. And, of course, there are strap-ons. Now you probably object to those as not being "real" but then your own source outlines the use of prosthetics and implants, which are essentially the same.

[Christian Democrats]

But a homosexual man can have sex with a woman... and a homosexual woman can have sex with a man... so homosexuals can still engage in coitus.

When I say "they," I refer to homosexual couples.

[Flagsia]

Of course there is homosexuals because everything has irregularity. Nothings perfect. And the majority in this world are heterosexual . When homosexual has become the majority in this world than I would say that homosexuality is natural.

Okay, so "majority" equals "natural"? Which means that "minority" equals "unnatural"? So...left-handers, redheads, people with crooked little fingers, and others with uncommon but not unheard of genetic traits are "unnatural"? Your definitions leave much to be desired, and have nothing to do with how the English language actually works.

Then why most of the world discriminate against muslim . Wait , I know because they are the minority . Christians are the majority , that is why it is natural to be a christian but not a muslim.
So why should I not discriminate against homosexual.

[Grave_n_idle]

But a homosexual man can have sex with a woman... and a homosexual woman can have sex with a man... so homosexuals can still engage in coitus.

When I say "they," I refer to homosexual couples.

I get that - which is why I corrected you on your use of the word 'copulate', and explained that 'coitus' is still possible for homosexuals, just not with each other - but that's because the word is defined as one form of 'heterosexual' intercourse.

I just don't see why it matters.

A gay man can still father a child. A gay woman can still bear a child. Gay couples can adopt.

It's not like being gay stops you having a family... if THAT even matters.

[Grenartia]

And homosexual partners can love each other and do all the same things as hetrosexual partners, minus the "have kids who share the same DNA with me and my partner", and anyways, that doesn't make their children less of a child. Point still stands.

We don't even have to go as far as children. Homosexual couples cannot copulate.

Actually, they can. Still, your point is totallly irrelevant to the issue.

Explain how homosexuality isn't natural.

If homosexuality is natural we all would be doing it , not just a few . And we would all be extinct now . And all the above posted about animals , are you an animal . Do you act like animal . If you want to copy animals than don't copy just one of their characteristic ,copy all of them , like some animals eating their young why don't you say it is natural and do it too.

It IS natural. For some people. For others, it isn't. It shouldn't be this hard to figure out. Also, there's over 7 billion people on this planet. Is reproduction even an issue any more?

[citation needed]

They cannot engage in coitus.

Reality. It proves you wrong.

[Christian Democrats]

Actually, a quadriplegic can copulate. It is easier for the female, but the male also can do it.

http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.mtKZKgMWKwG/b.4453431/k.A0C5/Sexuality_for_Men.htm

Amazing what science can do, isn't it?

Actually, science isn't doing anything for most of them. "Most paralyzed men are able to have a reflex erection unless nerves in the sacral spinal cord (S2-S4) are damaged." They are having erections by themselves.

[Anachronous Rex]

Amazing what science can do, isn't it?

Actually, science isn't doing anything for most of them. "Most paralyzed men are able to have a reflex erection unless nerves in the sacral spinal cord (S2-S4) are damaged." They are having erections by themselves.

You really think you would get away with dishonestly like that? Did you not read your source?

"While many men who are paralyzed can still "get it up," the erection may not be hard enough or last long enough for intercourse."

[Grenartia]

Okay, so "majority" equals "natural"? Which means that "minority" equals "unnatural"? So...left-handers, redheads, people with crooked little fingers, and others with uncommon but not unheard of genetic traits are "unnatural"? Your definitions leave much to be desired, and have nothing to do with how the English language actually works.

1. Then why most of the world discriminate against muslim . Wait , I know because they are the minority . 2. Christians are the majority , that is why it is 3. natural to be a christian but not a muslim.
4. So why should I not discriminate against homosexual.

1. Source on most of the world discriminating against Muslims?

2. No, we're not. We're only 1/6th of the world.

3. No, its not natural to be any religion.

4. Because homosexuality is not inherently wrong, even if most people aren't homosexual. As well as discrimination being just as wrong against a minority as it is against a majority.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay, so "majority" equals "natural"? Which means that "minority" equals "unnatural"? So...left-handers, redheads, people with crooked little fingers, and others with uncommon but not unheard of genetic traits are "unnatural"? Your definitions leave much to be desired, and have nothing to do with how the English language actually works.

Then why most of the world discriminate against muslim . Wait , I know because they are the minority . Christians are the majority , that is why it is natural to be a christian but not a muslim.
So why should I not discriminate against homosexual.

I'm sorry, I'm not here to give you a course in basic ethics and morality. If you haven't learned by now why it is bad to discriminate against minority populations, then I would suggest that you take a long look at history over the past 200 years, taking a close look at the elimination of the native tribes in America, the abuse of slaves, the Armenian Holocaust, the Nazi Holocaust, the lynchings in the Southern United States, and the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s. And if you don't understand by then why discrimination is wrong, then your perspective on life is so alien to me that it would be like trying to speak an unfamiliar tongue to try to convince you otherwise.

[Grenartia]

Anyways, Christian Democrats and Flagsia, I would appreciate a response to these two posts.

[Hathradic States]

Then why most of the world discriminate against muslim . Wait , I know because they are the minority . Christians are the majority , that is why it is natural to be a christian but not a muslim.
So why should I not discriminate against homosexual.

I'm sorry, I'm not here to give you a course in basic ethics and morality. If you haven't learned by now why it is bad to discriminate against minority populations, then I would suggest that you take a long look at history over the past 200 years, taking a close look at the elimination of the native tribes in America, the abuse of slaves, the Armenian Holocaust, the Nazi Holocaust, the lynchings in the Southern United States, and the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s. And if you don't understand by then why discrimination is wrong, then your perspective on life is so alien to me that it would be like trying to speak an unfamiliar tongue to try to convince you otherwise.

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, what defines ethics and morality? For you and I they probably aren't the same, and they also aren't the same for Flagsia. With many, the argument of "No, you thinking this is immoral is in itself immoral" just won't work.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm sorry, I'm not here to give you a course in basic ethics and morality. If you haven't learned by now why it is bad to discriminate against minority populations, then I would suggest that you take a long look at history over the past 200 years, taking a close look at the elimination of the native tribes in America, the abuse of slaves, the Armenian Holocaust, the Nazi Holocaust, the lynchings in the Southern United States, and the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s. And if you don't understand by then why discrimination is wrong, then your perspective on life is so alien to me that it would be like trying to speak an unfamiliar tongue to try to convince you otherwise.

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, what defines ethics and morality? For you and I they probably aren't the same, and they also aren't the same for Flagsia. With many, the argument of "No, you thinking this is immoral is in itself immoral" just won't work.

And I'm also not going to get into a discussion of what defines ethics and morality. Though your question is a fair one, it goes even further off the track of the topic than we've already gone, and that's a rather long way as it is. If he chooses to discriminate based upon the values he's expressed, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince him otherwise, at least in this forum.