Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

No, I am making a legitimate argument. "Proper use" is either a moral concept or a subjective concept as the distinction between proper and improper can only fit in one of those 2 categories. The next question is why the government should illegalize an "improper use" given that improper uses are merely either moral or subjective.


Why shouldn't it happen? Natural technology also wasn't meant to be subjected to booze, nicotene, skin dyes, or 36 straight hours on the couch while consuming porkrinds, or violent sports but that doesn't prevent people from doing it. Frankly, the entire injection of the word 'should' is just a way for you to inject our own morality into this debate.


If the law isn't for utilitarian purposes, then what is it for?


It matters in regards to whether or not we should make a law around it. Laws are created for society's purposes as we see from the idea of democracy. Thus, under that logic if a law does not serve society then it should not be a law. So, if we say that the costs of stopping a certain form of drugs are above the benefits, then that law does not seem to serve a purpose.


It does too as you wouldn't act if you weren't bothered on some level.


Nature doesn't have a value system. Religions may have value systems, but nature is a bunch of different creatures and not some pantheistic construction like you are assuming.


And sometimes they are.

Really though, it seems to me that you have gone off on some "Natural law" kick, decided to view that as separate from your religion, but somehow supportive of your religion, then decided to call that the moral truth without telling anyone and ignored the inherent issues with any notion of knowable moral rules inherent in the Is-Ought problem to determine your own views correct on the issue of gay marriage. Frankly, the reason why you can answer other people's questions on your views in the manner that you do is simply because you are coming from a different intellectual tradition than the dominant western liberalism, but frankly this just means that your views are incomprehensible to the rest of us and vice versa and thus doesn't solve any issues as ultimately you are working within the same framework as everyone else.

well people make it work man

we're not gonna settle because it doesn't make a baby
seriously, there isn't just 1 way
straight couples can do anal sex?
why can't gays

Well, like they say in Wicca, "An it harm none, do what ye will".

Two individuals who form a strong emotional bond wish to become physically intimate - that's just how nature made us. Sometimes we're made to be attracted to their own sex - and it's not just humans! It hurts no one, so why fight nature?

because he seems to think nature has to go his way or no way

Nothing else matters. This video holds all the answers concerning the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ3Zt8dJrPA

I feel enlightened.

Is that so? What part of nature?

As humans we have the ability to choose and educate ourselves about anything if we're willing in a society that let's us. For example, over a hundred years ago, colored people were used as slaves and thought of as sub human. That was the attitude displayed in most of the early American society. It was also a sin to be in an interacial marriage. Most people refused interacial couples to join hands in matrimony. Nowadays most of us would consider this old belief to be absurd. As we are a part of nature, we still have that choice to contribute or not contribute to a cause. It is said that our personal beliefs and contributions indirectly influence the thoughts of others thus society.

I think you skipped me

Last edited by MissConstrue on 06 Apr 2008, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I just want to say that I am a Christian and I support gay marriage. These are not mutually exclusive.

Also, consider the penguin that has wings which its ancestors once used to fly, but now it uses to swim. Is the penguin not using its wings for their natural designed function? Is it immoral for the penguin to swim?

Caveat: this argument assumes that one accept that wacky thing called the Theory of Evolution.

That assumes only two options and that purpose cannot be determined from design, which it can.




And those items you listed are objectively wrong and have consequences in the physical world. True that not are actions are seen to have immediate consequences and not all considered "bad" because of personal subjectivity and disregard, but what does it matter? BTW, I'm not saying that consequences determine the appropriateness of an action, that would just reduce it down to rationalizations and other forms of justification.




So, law should be dependent on the happiness of the populous?




An economic law being compared to a social law? Come on, do better.




That's using "bother" to mean "concerned" when it was first used to mean "personal stimulus". You are switching definitions.




1. That's not what I'm assuming. 2. Technology, both natural and artificial, has teleonomic relationships from which "values" may be obtained.




Depends where they come from, not their utility or how people feel about them.



Whether or not liberalism is dominant is irrelevant.

Reproduction aside, see my second post on the first page.

See what I've already written on the first page. As for "interracial" marriage, all humans are genetically within 0.5% of each other and the gene for melanin production accounts for 0.01% of that difference. There are no "races."

Might not be the best formulation, because I've had no formal training yet, but this remains.

You know what I meant by races, I think you're overgeneralizing. I already know about the different shades of melanonin. When I say race, I mean 3 distinctive stocks that generally describes a human's long ago ancestry attributed to their physical characteristics. What do I have to be really really politically correct?

he's just trying to throw you off as he has no answer

You mean like "Caucasian, Asiatic, and Negroid" as was posited in Haekel's book History of Creation? Genetics shows it to be nonsense, why does it matter? If genetics show that race theory was real, political correctness would be irrelevant in this case (as if it wasn't generally...)

I've been answering everyone. Sorry that I'm a slow typist.