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

[warpus]

then the bartender says: "How many gay Jews does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

 

[warpus]

double post - deleted

 

[croxis]

Sorry, I have to get 10 points for the Lutheran one

 

[Elrohir]

I wanted to hear a debate based on logic, if you don't like it or think it's unfair, tough. I just hear so may arguments with no logic behind them and I knew I wasn't the only person who wanted a break from it. You are welcome to use any logic based argument you want and fight on either side. But if you don't like the theme of this thread then that is simply your problem. Go post somewhere else.

So I am actually allowed to use the arguments you said no one could use in the first post, namely that gay marriage is "unnatural", "the only purpose of marrage is procreation and rasing children", "The definition of marriage a union between a man and a women", "arguments about how it's 'immoral'". Just making sure before I utilize them.

Oh and and I'm going to quote Pyrite here:"I say you should go for it. Show us the logic of jesus's hate for homosexuals!"

Jesus didn't hate homosexuals. He loves all sinners, including gays - I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to show the logic of something that I don't believe is true. I think you need to differentiate between hating someone, and hating what they do. You may hate it when a friend acts stupid, or hurts your feelings, but that doesn't mean you hate them. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Pyrite]

gay marriage is "unnatural"
How? If natural beings do something, then it seems to be natural. Similar behavior is found throughout the animal world, so, it seems to be a natural occurance.

"the only purpose of marrage is procreation and rasing children"
Then, to be fair shouldn't we outlaw marriage for couples that haven't produced children after a certain time period?


"arguments about how it's 'immoral'"
I'm wondering how you're going to do this logically, but if you can, cool!

"Jesus didn't hate homosexuals. He loves all sinners, including gays - I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to show the logic of something that I don't believe is true. I think you need to differentiate between hating someone, and hating what they do. You may hate it when a friend acts stupid, or hurts your feelings, but that doesn't mean you hate them. Do you see what I'm saying?"

I mean, I see what you're saying, but if one of my freinds is pissing me off I'll probably just throw a beer at them, not throw them into a pit of fire and despair. The 2nd option really seems to be for people you very much hate, or else you wouldn't allow it.

 

[Eukaryote]

So I am actually allowed to use the arguments you said no one could use in the first post, namely that gay marriage is "unnatural", "the only purpose of marrage is procreation and rasing children", "The definition of marriage a union between a man and a women", "arguments about how it's 'immoral'". Just making sure before I utilize them.


Jesus didn't hate homosexuals. He loves all sinners, including gays - I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to show the logic of something that I don't believe is true. I think you need to differentiate between hating someone, and hating what they do. You may hate it when a friend acts stupid, or hurts your feelings, but that doesn't mean you hate them. Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes you can use all those arguments but first you must prove their logic, and I don't know how'd you'd do that. And yes I see what you're saying about the hate.

 

[croxis]

Hating a relationship out of powerful love and lifelong commitment is very much hating the person, especially if the love and their partner are very important to the person and builds part of their identity around that relationship.

So yes, you my hate the sin, but because of that you end up hating the sinner as well. Homosexuality isn't like murder or adultery or stealing where someone is harmed and isn't apart of their identity (usually, sans some odd cases but they have issues). Trying to spin it so you are on the moral high ground does not work very well.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I disagree. I can think that a particular action is wrong and still not hate the person doing it. There is more to a person than their sexual identity or orientation, after all. And I believe that there are a lot of things which do not directly harm another person but still may be immoral.

 

[Sidhe]

"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?

The the bartender says, GENTLEMAN! please! there's a perfectly servicable gay bar up the road if you want to indulge in that sort of thing

 

[croxis]

LOL
I'm sorry, I can't agree. Yes there are other aspect to a person, but there are indeed people in the world whos relationships are very important to them. You know, the whole love thing. To condemn that is to condemn part of me.

You are still trying to spin it and you have convinced yourself you are doing no harm. I'm sorry, I see that as blatantly false. For many things to condemn the act does not condemn the person, but this is one of those cases where this does not hold true.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, perhaps you think I am doing harm. But in fact, what have I actually done that shows condemnation to anyone? Regardless of what I may think, I am not actually hurting them. Besides, all I am condemning is the sex.

 

[Elrohir]

Hating a relationship out of powerful love and lifelong commitment is very much hating the person, especially if the love and their partner are very important to the person and builds part of their identity around that relationship.

So yes, you my hate the sin, but because of that you end up hating the sinner as well. Homosexuality isn't like murder or adultery or stealing where someone is harmed and isn't apart of their identity (usually, sans some odd cases but they have issues). Trying to spin it so you are on the moral high ground does not work very well.

I would disagree. You can hate that someone uses drugs, and is messing up their body - but that doesn't mean you hate and despise them. You can hate that someone has dropped out of school and has no hopes for anything better in life than working at the McDonalds down the street - but that doesn't mean you loathe them.

I would say it is indeed possible to hate the acts that disappoint or anger you without hating the actor.

Yes you can use all those arguments but first you must prove their logic, and I don't know how'd you'd do that. And yes I see what you're saying about the hate.

Ok, the first argument you said we couldn't use unless we could prove it's logicity was that gay marriage is wrong because "it's not natural".

Biologically speaking, sex is for procreation. Of course people have sex just for fun as well, but that's a societal or personal reason: Biologically, sex is for having babies. We have sex to create the new generation of our species, and to pass on our genes. Sexual relationships that do not reflect this in any way are, by their nature, unnatural. As such, I don't believe they should receive government sanction.

Next was "the only purpose of marrage is procreation and rasing children". I wouldn't say the only reason, but certainly one of the most important. You see, marriages have, throughout history, been more stable families than two people who just shack up together. Even today, with our high divorce rate, it's still a more stable union. And family is the most basic building block of society, and stable families will contribute to a stable society. As such, it is in the State's best interest to encourage stable families. Additionally, heterosexual marriages are good for having children - obviously if they're gay, they won't be having many children, and if they aren't married, then they will be less inclined to have children. A new generation (And greater than the old) is also in societies best interest, and should therefore be encouraged.

Third was "The definition of marriage a union between a man and a women". Logically speaking, this is how marriage has traditionally been defined throughout history. There have been rare exceptions, but on the whole this has been the case. If it has worked thusfar, and gotten us to the advanced state we are in today, why should be risk the change of such a fundamental part of our society when we have no reason to?

Finally, the last argument was that it is "immoral". Morality is an inherently personal belief, as there is no physically simple standard of it, society is governed by laws, instead of morals, though the laws are (Hopefully) inspired by, and reinforced by morals. If one believes something is immoral (As I believe homosexuality is) then one should oppose it, would you not agree? It should also be opposed, not only in the simple act, but in government recognition of the legitimacy of this act - of keeping the law in line with morality. If you disagree with what I believe to be the true standard of morality, then that's your privilege, certainly - but I should not be stopped from attempting to have society governed by mine standard of morality than you should be from trying to get it governed by yours.

 

[Eukaryote]

I wanna marry a cow and have beefy mutent babies!

 

[Mise]

Next was "the only purpose of marrage is procreation and rasing children". I wouldn't say the only reason, but certainly one of the most important. You see, marriages have, throughout history, been more stable families than two people who just shack up together. Even today, with our high divorce rate, it's still a more stable union. And family is the most basic building block of society, and stable families will contribute to a stable society. As such, it is in the State's best interest to encourage stable families. Additionally, heterosexual marriages are good for having children - obviously if they're gay, they won't be having many children, and if they aren't married, then they will be less inclined to have children. A new generation (And greater than the old) is also in societies best interest, and should therefore be encouraged.

Biologically speaking, monogamy is unnatural. Ever heard of the 7 year itch? It's biology telling the man that he should go forth and multiply, with other women. There are many biological advantages to polygamy, like having a larger amount of genetic material to "choose" from (I didn't put this very well cos I'm not an expert).

 

[Elrohir]

I wanna marry a cow and have beefy mutent babies!

Excuse me?

Biologically speaking, monogamy is unnatural. Ever heard of the 7 year itch? It's biology telling the man that he should go forth and multiply, with other women. There are many biological advantages to polygamy, like having a larger amount of genetic material to "choose" from (I didn't put this very well cos I'm not an expert).

I would have two objections to this: First, it's impractical for a man to have multiple wives; there are actually more women than men on the planet Earth. Second, such a system would not be fair to women, or as stable: And thus, society should look out for monogamous heterosexual marriage, for it's own sake and stability.

 

[Mise]

I would have two objections to this: First, it's impractical for a man to have multiple wives; there are actually more women than men on the planet Earth. Second, such a system would not be fair to women, or as stable: And thus, society should look out for monogamous heterosexual marriage, for it's own sake and stability.

1) it's not about the number of wives, really. It's about "marriage" not being "until death do us part", and (2) it's not fair to gay people that they're not allowed to marry who they want. Additionally, if stability is the only critereon for what the government should promote in a relationship, then there's no reason why homosexual relationships should be excluded.

 

[Ansar]

Marriage should be between 2 people that love each other.