MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[robvalue]

You appear to be ignoring me Lek, but I'll give it one last go.

You said homosexual relationships are immoral for faith reasons.

1) What does this mean? You'd block legislation about the general population because of your religion? Would you respect my religious definition of marriage if it was different to yours, and live by it?
2) Are you suggesting homosexuals should either have pretend hetero relationships, or else be alone all their life?

Appeals to what is and isn't "natural" are entirely fallacious because it is totally natural by any reasonable use of the word; and if your belief is that a supernatural God is screwing around with the world at every turn then nothing is "natural" anymore, is it? What exactly does natural mean to you?

[Jackalope]

Appeals to what is and isn't "natural" are entirely fallacious because it is totally natural by any reasonable use of the word;

Not to mention that "it's natural, therefore good" is wholly fallacious in and of itself.

[robvalue]

It really frightens me to think what some religious people must be teaching their kids about homosexuals.

[Longhorn]

For me I think it all comes from faith reasons.

And you want to force your faith on everybody else in a secular society and forbid people to marry because your religion tells you so? That's not how it works. You don't get to push your morality on everyone else.

'Faith reasons' is not an excuse. It's the same as 'someone told me it's bad'. Is there any real reason that anyone-religious or not-would recognize for saying same sex relationships are immoral?

 One thing I might say is that it is an unnatural act, since the human body doesn't naturally accommodate a penis being inserted in its anus.  I don't know whether or not I could say that it was immoral for that reason, but it would seem to be unnatural.

That's not a good argument.

Everything humans do is natural, because they're a part of nature. The body does accommodate anal sex, straight couples do it too. And what about lesbian sex? 'Unnatural' too?

[Regina]

"One thing I might say is that it is an unnatural act, since the human body doesn't naturally accommodate a penis being inserted in its anus.  I don't know whether or not I could say that it was immoral for that reason, but it would seem to be unnatural."

This forum is so un-mobile friendly i couldnt quote properly.

Anyway this "penii in anuses" argument is falsical too. All men have the prostate gland inside the anus, which can be stimulated by a penetrating object (namely, a penis) to give intense sexual orgasms. I'm pretty sure if youre going to argue that God designed humans, he wouldnt put that there by accidenti.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Anyway this "penii in anuses" argument is falsical too. All men have the prostate gland inside the anus, which can be stimulated by a penetrating object (namely, a penis) to give intense sexual orgasms. I'm pretty sure if youre going to argue that God designed humans, he wouldnt put that there by accidenti.

God: "How's that human prototype coming along?"
Angel: "It's effing awesome.  Here, take a look."
God: "Sweet. Totally sweet. Let's go ahead and get these babies out on the market!"

<a few centuries later, God looks down and sees Sodom and Gamorrah>

God: "Umm, angel?"
Angel: "Yeah, God?"
God: "You guys remembered to put the prostate far, far away from any orifices, right?"
Angel: "Umm... how far is 'far'?"
God: <facepalm>

[Tonus]

Has Ray Comfort explained how the penis was designed to fit perfectly into the human hand?

[Razzle]

Lek. Keep your big boy shorts on and tell me what are the reasons for same sex relationships being immoral that don't refer to religion. Please?

For me I think it all comes from faith reasons.  One thing I might say is that it is an unnatural act, since the human body doesn't naturally accommodate a penis being inserted in its anus.  I don't know whether or not I could say that it was immoral for that reason, but it would seem to be unnatural.

1) Some religions have an official pro-gay stance, and their members have just as much faith as you do about this issue, but their faith tells them that same-sex relationships are moral. For example, the Unitarian Universalists have been petitioning for decades to be allowed to marry same-sex couples, because they believe it's immoral and against God's wishes to discriminate against them. Maybe you weren't aware of this. Now that you are aware of it, would you agree that just as those churches have no right to legally force your church to marry gay couples (which hasn't happened and was never on the table, of course), you equally have no right to legally force their church to refuse to marry couples that their conscience dictates they marry? Or do you think that your religious faith-based beliefs deserve to be forced on to everybody by law, and the religious faith-based beliefs of certain other religious people do not? The SCOTUS decision is the obvious solution to religious conflicts like this. Basically, the government is saying to all religious organisations: "solemnise same-sex unions if you want to, and don't solemnise them if you don't want to. As a religion, it's your business, not ours." This is a win for religious freedom.

2) A very large minority of young male-female couples frequently have anal sex in the USA, and around 1 in 5 male couples do not have anal sex. As for female couples, far fewer of them ever have anal sex than mixed-sex couples do. Would you therefore agree that the law ought to prevent any couple from getting married - whether a male, female or mixed-sex couple - if there is solid evidence that they have had anal sex, or have announced their intentions to do so after marriage? If your aim is to outlaw marriages between people who have anal sex, then surely banning all same-sex couples from getting married - despite female same-sex couples being the least likely of any group to do so - and not bothering to pass laws about anal-loving mixed-sex couples, is a highly hamfisted (hehe) way of doing so?

3) It's true that the rectum does not perfectly accommodate the penis if appropriate care is not taken. (Next time Lek, use lube, get a gentle lover, and relax your muscles. You're welcome.) However, the vagina does perfectly accommodate another woman's finger; even more safely and comfortably than it accommodates the penis or the average male finger, which will tend to be larger than a woman's. Is female homosexuality therefore "natural", and if not, what's your justification for wanting the law to prevent female couples getting married as well as male couples?

[robvalue]

I have a mental image of the high court judges all in a room seeing what does and doesn't fit up each others' arses before writing the rules on marriage.

[TheRealJoeFish]

I have a mental image of the high court judges all in a room seeing what does and doesn't fit up each others' arses before writing the rules on marriage.

And the ones who voted against are the tight-asses!

*rimshot*