Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Gay Marriage Immoral?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 134 (332659)
07-17-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by LudoRephaim
07-15-2006 1:20 PM


Re: dah source. dah misinformation ...
The real name of this "disorder" is Irritable Bowel Syndrome:
IBS or Irritable Bowel Syndrome is a condition effecting up to 20% of the population and the numbers are rising. There are more women sufferers than men and the age that it commonly starts is at around twenty. It is classed as a ”functional’ disorder as it alters the way the body works and therefore is not diagnosable using traditional means such as examination or blood test.
It is not a commonly understood condition, with the medical community unable to clarify the exact cause. IBS appears to occur due to the body’s inability to regulate the bowel functions correctly. This leads to a number of unpleasant symptoms such as abdominal pain, cramping, excessive wind and irregular bowel movements including constipation and/or diarrhea. However, there are treatments available to allow sufferers to manage their symptoms.
See also see Petris Files - note that the emails are between editors at MSN Encarta.
2. Some other refs indicate that it is an offensive variant for IBS (irritable bowel syndrome). This would be because by attaching "gay" to "bowel syndrome," users are limiting and restricting a syndrome affecting straights and gays alike to just gays, therefore impugning the gays' sexual practices/acts. I question this logic.
Even your reference says "caused by enteric bacteria, viruses, fungi, zooparasites, ... " none of which would be in any way specific to or result from anal sex.
Edited by RAZD, : add signature fix html

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:20 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2006 11:54 AM RAZD has not replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 47 of 134 (334819)
07-24-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
07-15-2006 12:52 PM


i think one argument for the immorality of homosexuality would be the shirking of a biological and familial responsibility to pass on genetic information. Children have a duty to their ancestors to carry on the family line. Of course, that aspect of morality is really between the parties involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 07-15-2006 12:52 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by happy_atheist, posted 07-24-2006 12:24 PM AlienInvader has replied
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2006 12:03 PM AlienInvader has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 48 of 134 (334824)
07-24-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlienInvader
07-24-2006 11:43 AM


AlienInvader writes:
i think one argument for the immorality of homosexuality would be the shirking of a biological and familial responsibility to pass on genetic information. Children have a duty to their ancestors to carry on the family line. Of course, that aspect of morality is really between the parties involved.
My neighbour is a lesbian and is in a long term relationship with another woman (they live together). She has children from a previous relationship. Does that now make her lesbianism moral?
Also does that make heterosexual relationships where there is a conscious choice not to have children immoral? My partners aunt had herself sterilised at a young age to guarentee that there was no longer any possibility for her to have children. Is her marriage immoral?
Anyway, even apart from the two objections I made above I don't think that anyone has an obligation or a responsibility to reproduce. I certainly don't think people are born on condition that they reproduce (or even attempt to reproduce) at a later date. Peoples lives are there own to live as they will.
Edited by happy_atheist, : Cleaned up first sentence, it wasn't grammatically correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 11:43 AM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 2:07 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 49 of 134 (334887)
07-24-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by happy_atheist
07-24-2006 12:24 PM


quote:
My neighbour is a lesbian and is in a long term relationship with another woman (they live together). She has children from a previous relationship. Does that now make her lesbianism moral?
actually strictly speaking, not hers, but mayhaps her partner's. lesbianism doesn't really factor in
quote:
Also does that make heterosexual relationships where there is a conscious choice not to have children immoral? My partners aunt had herself sterilised at a young age to guarentee that there was no longer any possibility for her to have children. Is her marriage immoral?
if her parents condoned it, then what can i say?
edit:
nm, parents aren't final say, yes, it's immoral
quote:
Anyway, even apart from the two objections I made above I don't think that anyone has an obligation or a responsibility to reproduce. I certainly don't think people are born on condition that they reproduce (or even attempt to reproduce) at a later date. Peoples lives are there own to live as they will.
we have a difference of opinion, my view is based on an opinion you don't hold, so yeah. People aren't born on the condition they reproduce, it'd just be dutiful of them to do so; and to me duty is an aspect of morality.
Edited by AlienInvader, : corrected your moral lesbianism to immoral lesbianism
Edited by AlienInvader, : nm
Edited by AlienInvader, : realised, yeah disservice to the people before parents

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by happy_atheist, posted 07-24-2006 12:24 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by happy_atheist, posted 07-24-2006 4:18 PM AlienInvader has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 50 of 134 (334936)
07-24-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by AlienInvader
07-24-2006 2:07 PM


AlienInvader writes:
actually strictly speaking, not hers, but mayhaps her partner's. lesbianism doesn't really factor in
I'm not sure I understand why you think her partner is moral but not her.
AlienInvader writes:
we have a difference of opinion, my view is based on an opinion you don't hold, so yeah.
I agree, it's all largely opinion based. I do my best to form my opinions based on the consequences. If no one else is harmed (very general meaning of harm, not just physical) then I don't see a reason to consider it immoral.
AlienInvader writes:
People aren't born on the condition they reproduce, it'd just be dutiful of them to do so; and to me duty is an aspect of morality.
I can see where you're coming from, but as you say there's a difference of opinion. To me it seems very similar to the parent who wants their child to be a doctor, but the child grows up and is a musician instead. The parent doesn't value music as a profession and is upset. Is the child being immoral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 2:07 PM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 4:43 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 51 of 134 (334943)
07-24-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by happy_atheist
07-24-2006 4:18 PM


i'm saying her partner is immoral... she's fine.
yes, squandered oppurtunity/investment... immoral, but less so than the children thing... our parents "live on" through us... it's sorta like killing them and grandparents... if the ancestors don't mind... then it's like euthanasia, which i'm ok with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by happy_atheist, posted 07-24-2006 4:18 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by happy_atheist, posted 07-25-2006 12:56 PM AlienInvader has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 134 (335009)
07-24-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
07-15-2006 12:52 PM


Interesting information?
FROM: When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite (click)
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
FROM: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (click) by John Boswell:
He offers a sophisticated interpretation of the concepts of love and friendship and the institution of heterosexual marriage, from the ancient Greeks and Romans through the Middle Ages, demonstrating that in the distant past there was not the link of love and marriage expected today. Relationships between men were as likely to be sanctified and consummated as heterosexual ones, and the documentary evidence presented shows that men set up households together in significant numbers. Material on women is sparse, Boswell notes, because most premodern historical sources were written by men, for men, about men; women figure in them either as property or as objects of sexual desire.
Not since Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1981) have Christians of all creeds confronted a work that makes them look so closely at their notions of the relationship between the church and its gay and lesbian believers. Diligently researched and documented, this immensely scholarly work covers everything from the "paired" saints of Perpetua and Felicitas and Serge and Bacchus to lesbian transvestites in Albania. Examining evidence that the early church celebrated a same-sex nuptial liturgy, Boswell compares both Christian same-sex unions to Christian heterosexual unions and non-Christian same-sex unions to non-Christian heterosexual unions.
Just some more traditions that show culturally sanctified homosexual relationships ... not far from the (apple) tree eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 07-15-2006 12:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 53 of 134 (335141)
07-25-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by LudoRephaim
07-17-2006 10:19 AM


Failing in your argument
To many Christians, Jews and Muslims it is immoral to partake of homosexual acts. Defending them is also immoral.
The whole point of the thread is for you (or any one else making your argument) to present a logical, coherent, relavent case for why gay marriage is immoral _WITHOUT_ simply siting the Bible.
The Bible hands down 10 commandments. Homosexuality is absent. Not working on Saturday is mentioned. Therefore, not working on Sat is MORE IMPORTANT to GOD than Gay marriage. Yet, people still mow their lawns, Starbucks is still open, we have flights in and out of airports, the electricity is still running...etc.
So, if you can't rationalize your position, and you refuse to accept it, please also adhere to at least the 10 Commandments and take your house off the electric grid Friday night before going to bed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-17-2006 10:19 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 54 of 134 (335142)
07-25-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by LudoRephaim
07-17-2006 10:22 AM


Ummm.
If i was creamed by a really good argument, i'd say that too
You've been getting creamed for about 50 posts now, without coming close to making a single point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-17-2006 10:22 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 55 of 134 (335143)
07-25-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by LudoRephaim
07-17-2006 11:00 AM


Re: bigotry
So if I call for outlawing crapping in a public place because it is disgusting, that makes me a bigot?
I'm going to walk you through this nice and slow.
If you call for outlawing all people from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- NOT bigotted.
If you call for outlawing black people from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- bigotted.
If you call for outlawing Jews from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- bigotted.
If you call for outlawing gays from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- bigotted.
If you call for an end to all marriage -- not bigotted
If you call for an end to inter-racial marriage -- bigotted
If you call for an end to cross-religious marriage -- bigotted
Are you begining to see a pattern?
Guess where banning only gays from playing softball would fall?
Now, try and figure out where banning only gays from marriage falls?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-17-2006 11:00 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 07-26-2006 6:32 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 56 of 134 (335145)
07-25-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
07-17-2006 6:39 PM


IBS completely unrelated to anal sex
I happen to know a few people with IBS, caused by various things including stress, an allergic reaction to a medication, imbalance of GI flora.
NONE of the people I know who have IBS got it from anal sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2006 6:39 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-25-2006 12:02 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 57 of 134 (335149)
07-25-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Nuggin
07-25-2006 11:54 AM


Re: IBS completely unrelated to anal sex
i have a friend who has it and so does his sister. i propose you get it from your parents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2006 11:54 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 58 of 134 (335151)
07-25-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlienInvader
07-24-2006 11:43 AM


THANK YOU!!!!
Thank you Alien for at least attempting to pose an argument which adheres to the idea on the thread!
I think you're wrong, but I commend your efforts.
Here are a few problem with your argument.
1a) You assume that if people who were practicing homosexual acts were to stop that activity, they would instead turn to heterosexual acts and produce young.
1b) You likewise assume that people who are practicing homosexual acts have not, or will not, produce young.
Neither of these is correct. Not every sexual act performed by heterosexuals results in child birth. Heck, not every sexual act DESIGNED to result in child birth, results in child birth.
Further, even a glance at the gay community shows that there are plenty of gay parents raising their own biological children.
2) The second assumption, though more implied, is that it is more morally correct to produce children than not.
This would likewise imply that it is more moral to produce hundreds of children than to produce only one, etc.
You quickly run up against a morality issue of resources and overpopulation.
3) The third assumption, also implied, is that raising your own biological children is more moral than adopting a needy child.
The morality conflict there is pretty self aparent.
So, I think your argument falls apart pretty quickly, but I applaud you for at least making one!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 11:43 AM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AlienInvader, posted 07-25-2006 3:46 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 59 of 134 (335163)
07-25-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlienInvader
07-24-2006 4:43 PM


AlienInvader writes:
yes, squandered oppurtunity/investment... immoral
I'm not sure what you're refering to here. Was it my comment about a parent wanting their child to be a doctor but the child instead becoming a musician?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 4:43 PM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AlienInvader, posted 07-25-2006 3:47 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 60 of 134 (335220)
07-25-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nuggin
07-25-2006 12:03 PM


Re: THANK YOU!!!!
it's a difficult case to make, and while the viewpoint in some aspects reflect my own, i tend to shy away from absolutes. one can make a case for it, but it's stretching it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2006 12:03 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024