RE: MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE
June 30, 2015 at 9:57 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2015 at 10:12 am by Razzle.)
(June 29, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Lek Wrote:(June 29, 2015 at 3:07 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: 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?
"Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is like when you trust yourself to the water. You don't grab hold of the water when you swim, because if you do you will become stiff and tight in the water, and sink. You have to relax, and the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging, and holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be."
Alan Watts
Alan Watts