Another gay thread, (groan), but this time only LOGIC is allowed! (Yay)

[Sidhe]

What if those arguments you mentioned could be proven to be based upon a logical basis? Would they then be allowed in this thread?

I suspect not. Which makes this thread quite pointless, and need I say it, stupid. What's the point of a debate if you limit what someone may say before it starts? Saying someone can't use many of their arguments, just because you don't like them, is pointless: It's not a true debate, it's just you creating an artificial discussion based upon rules that give you an unfair advantage.

If you want a real discussion, then I'd be happy to debate this issue with you. But seriously, limiting certain arguments just because you find them "illogical" is inane.

Elrohir you can use any phrase, tennant, moral position or scriptural analysis to draw logical conclusion. If I say the bible decries homosexuality and I provide a list of quotes my statement is at least logically consistent, now if I want to make a point that this is still valid in a more liberal world, again I have to bring in logical reasons why this must be so, or at least ones that will leave me sounding rational and consistent with my argument, whether others chose to side with your idea of logic, is the essence, I don't see this as a plea to keep certain arguments out of the topic, just that you keep them consistent. For example marriage in a historically liberal society such as France often seems illogical and inconsistent as a social process, but if you stick to the original concepts, there's no reason why you can't make it sound like an eminently logical practice. And argue for it's tennants to be upheld. You just have to try a little harder, be more reasoned, and not devolve the process into the insubstantial: because that is what I believe despite your protestaions type exchanges. I like the idea of keeping it free of unsubstantiated opinions, if you don't wish to there are plenty of threads out there where you don't have to, simply keep to those perhaps?

 

[Shadylookin]

I am sorry, but my opposition on same-gender marriages are rooted in religion, the natural law, and tradition.

I still firmly hold that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Mainly because I feel and believe that same-gender unions are in contrary to the natrual law. The natural purpose of marriage and sex is procreation and any union or sexual act where procreation is not theoretically possible is not in accordance with the natural law and thus is intrnsically immoral (There are exceptions such as infertile couples and post-menapausal woman).

However, since youre only looking for logic and decide to not accept any sourt of philosophies in regards to this. I'll move on .

what natural law are you talking about? Technically if it can happen then it is "natural."

 

[Pyrite]

"natrual law"

Natural law is the catholic idea that there are a few universal (natural) human laws. Such as, killing, and stealing is wrong....and also...gays!

 

[GenMarshall]

After much consideration, I have thought about the issue at hand and came out that I am wrong on the whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriages. Marriage should be between two people who love each other as well as their religion (or not if they dont have a religion). Marriage has been tossed around in the lawbooks and I feel that the term should be removed and replaced with Civil Unions for all orientations and leave the termonology of marriage between couples and/or religious insitutions.

 

[Little Raven]

And people say nothing ever comes of these arguments.

Congratulations, CivGeneral. That kind of introspection is less common than people would hope.

 

[puglover]

Now, that's logic.

Only people who agree with you are logical.

Really though, I think gay marriage should be allowed, as I believe in a small government, but I still have a conviction against homosexuality on a moral basis.

 

[Shadylookin]

"natrual law"

Natural law is the catholic idea that there are a few universal (natural) human laws. Such as, killing, and stealing is wrong....and also...gays!

the only "natural law" I'm aware of is darwinism and survival of the fittest.

After much consideration, I have thought about the issue at hand and came out that I am wrong on the whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriages. Marriage should be between two people who love each other as well as their religion (or not if they dont have a religion). Marriage has been tossed around in the lawbooks and I feel that the term should be removed and replaced with Civil Unions for all orientations and leave the termonology of marriage between couples and/or religious insitutions.

sounds like a fine idea

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So, does that mean that I agree with puglover and CG; that although homosexuality may be wrong, marriage itself should be a social institution and government recognition should be given to any union? If so, it looks like all these discussions of homosexuality here at CFC may be worth something after all.

 

[Eukaryote]

After much consideration, I have thought about the issue at hand and came out that I am wrong on the whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriages. Marriage should be between two people who love each other as well as their religion (or not if they dont have a religion). Marriage has been tossed around in the lawbooks and I feel that the term should be removed and replaced with Civil Unions for all orientations and leave the termonology of marriage between couples and/or religious insitutions.

*HUG*

And people say nothing ever comes of these arguments.

Congratulations, CivGeneral. That kind of introspection is less common than people would hope.

Yeah, Ditto.

So, does that mean that I agree with puglover and CG; that although homosexuality may be wrong, marriage itself should be a social institution and government recognition should be given to any union? If so, it looks like all these discussions of homosexuality here at CFC may be worth something after all.

Well this one does becuase of the logic!

 

[classical_hero]

Logically speaking marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman. There are no cases through out history where homosexuals had anything resembling marriage. Also governments give priveledges to married couples because they know that a family environment is the best place for children and the production of children. Homosexuals cannot produce children in and by themselves because you need an ovum and a sperm to produce a child and two sperm together and two ovaries together will not produce children.

 

[El_Machinae]

If your legal system involves an oath to remain commited for life, and an 'easy out' clause for divorce, then clearly the entire legal institution is a farce.

Because where I'm from, oaths are supposed to mean something.

If you get divorced, then your original oath was worth squat. How can we recognize a legal institution which has a heavy component of legal oath-breaking?

Do we support other institutions where the person is allowed to do the opposite of what they'd do?

 

[El_Machinae]

Homosexuals cannot produce children in and by themselves because you need an ovum and a sperm to produce a child and two sperm together and two ovaries together will not produce children.

Of course, there are exceptions ...

 

[Atlas14]

Of course, there are exceptions ...

Gay exceptions...

 

[El_Machinae]

the only "natural law" I'm aware of is darwinism and survival of the fittest.

I also include the constants we put into our physics formulas. Those are certainly natural laws, and they often seem immutable.

We don't *know* that the Creator wants us to love one another, but we certainly *know* that It wanted objects of mass to be attracted to each other proportional to the square of their distance.

A law we cannot break is certainly a law.

 

[puglover]

So, does that mean that I agree with puglover and CG; that although homosexuality may be wrong, marriage itself should be a social institution and government recognition should be given to any union? If so, it looks like all these discussions of homosexuality here at CFC may be worth something after all.

A Protestant, a Catholic, and a Mormon agreeing on an issue. Quite beautiful if I do say so myself.

 

[croxis]

And it was an atheist who introduced you all to the idea

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And it was an atheist who introduced you all to the idea

Proof that the world is about to end . . .

Actually, it was another one of these threads that for me, finally showed me the solution to what I saw as the problem of supproting/opposing gay marriage. This way everyone is happy.

 

[puglover]

Proof that the world is about to end . . .

Or that the punchline is coming....

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Or that the punchline is coming....

"A Protestant, a Catholic, and a Mormon walk into a bar. An atheist comes up to them and shows them how to reconcile their moral beliefs with their political views regarding gay marriage. Then the bartender says . . ."

Any takers?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

"...I'm a Lutheran, and I thought of that years ago."

(No, really.)