Mormons

Originally posted by Eis
Thing is, by allowing gay marriage not only will straight conservatives still be able to marry people the opposite sex but gay people will be able to marry people their same sex. If it doesn't 'hurt' the majority in anyway (ANY WAY) then why should it not become legal?

As Alliance said the US isn't a democracy, not a direct one anyway. If most americans wanted gay marriage to legal, that would be irrelevant. It's what senators and other politicians think on the issue that matter.

Gay marriage hurts no one, not one person, it's just religious people that try to force their believes into everyone. "Not religious? We don't give a shit, you'll follow our rules anyway" is not an attitude I believe you want to have.

And the government should be utilitarian, greatest good for the greatest number of people. They have the chance of giving millions of homosexuals the joy of getting married, but it's you people that are standing in the way. Banning gay marriage doesn't help you in any way possible same goes for allowing it.

Here is an argument against allowing gay marriage, but it also attacks homosexual partner benefits/rights in respect to government, healthcare and other aspects.

Why is it that there is a benefit for married couples, especially those having children? Because marriage creates the opportunity to procreate. Why is this important to a government? It builds a larger taxable population. It adds to the number one resource of every government, manpower. Side note, Zero population arguments are stupid when discussing America, there is still a large enough land area to support and house a larger American population, it may need to be managed differently, but it is there. Also, children, and the possibility of having children inherently increase possible cost fluctuations.

Do homosexual couples and partnerships provide any benefits, or create any cost changes by being a couple/partnership? No. Is there any tangible, visible reason for legal movement toward homosexual marriage? No. What is the reason to need legal action to validate a homosexual marriage? I do not see one that would necessitate a legal marriage.

You might say it wouldn't hurt anything, but I do believe the slippery slope argument works with this subject.

I have to run, have fun peoples 🙂

So heterosexual couples that cannot have children or 45+ year old couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?

Originally posted by Eis
So heterosexual couples that cannot have children or 45+ year old couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?

Heterosexual couples tend to find out that they cannot have children following marriage and attempting to have children. Before marriage the government can not force people to have medical tests done and a questionnaire on whether a couple would want to have children would not be acceptable either, so the first group can't be denied. As for the second group, older people can still have children, I believe the oldest woman to have a baby was over fifty if not over sixty. It isn't wise to do this, but it isn't impossible. We can't discriminate based on age. There isn't discrimination in the argument presented, so we can't add it here.

Also, remember the previous argument is based on the reasons for legal action giving tax breaks and requiring benefits for an organization that encourages the growth of a highly valuable resource. Any heterosexual monogamous marriage encourages the act of procreation. By default, even infertile couples demonstrate the advantages of a marriage, otherwise your argument wouldn't hold weight. Homosexual couples do not in any way contribute to society in the manner I have argued, and so society should not be required to pay for the marriage or partnership of such a couple.

Now this is my totally logical argument, and does not take into consideration my religious views. It is the one I would present to a secular audience. I presented it in response to the statement that the major reason we would be supportive of denying homosexual marriage was based on religous motivation. (Thought I'd add that for anyone thinking I didn't have the religious side as well 😉 )

Originally posted by Aziz!
Religion - Brain washing of the worst kind.

I thought I'd comment on this quickly as well. There isn't such a thing as brainwashing as I believe is meant by this statement. Brainwashing, if you would want to call it that, is just learning. When you spend time around atheists (just using them as an example due to the context of the statement being addressed) and keep yourself separated from religious people you will be "brainwashed" into thinking as they do. Fact of life, you will come to behave like the people that you spend time around, it isn't brainwashing, its an evolutionary mechanism that aids in survival. Since you will be brainwashed no matter which group you spend time around make sure that you spend equal time with people on all sides of the questions you care about, this should help you avoid making decisions based on the group and instead help you base your opinions on yourself. But even this won't work unless all the groups are equally attractive (by attractive I mean that each group should be just as desirable to you as the next as far as your desire for acceptance in the group, in as many ways as possible.)

I know it may have been joking, but thought I'd say something for fun anyway 😉

Originally posted by Regret
Heterosexual couples tend to find out that they cannot have children following marriage and attempting to have children. Before marriage the government can not force people to have medical tests done and a questionnaire on whether a couple would want to have children would not be acceptable either, so the first group can't be denied. As for the second group, older people can still have children, I believe the oldest woman to have a baby was over fifty if not over sixty. It isn't wise to do this, but it isn't impossible. We can't discriminate based on age. There isn't discrimination in the argument presented, so we can't add it here.

Also, remember the previous argument is based on the reasons for legal action giving tax breaks and requiring benefits for an organization that encourages the growth of a highly valuable resource. Any heterosexual monogamous marriage encourages the act of procreation. By default, even infertile couples demonstrate the advantages of a marriage, otherwise your argument wouldn't hold weight. Homosexual couples do not in any way contribute to society in the manner I have argued, and so society should not be required to pay for the marriage or partnership of such a couple.

Now this is my totally logical argument, and does not take into consideration my religious views. It is the one I would present to a secular audience. I presented it in response to the statement that the major reason we would be supportive of denying homosexual marriage was based on religous motivation. (Thought I'd add that for anyone thinking I didn't have the religious side as well 😉 )

I'm sorry to be this blunt but cut the bullshit, the reason you don't want gay marriage to be legal has NOTHING to do with taxes, it's a moral thing.

How did we get this discussion out of my post about what happiness is?

And as long as we're having the discussion...

Does it matter at all that 70%+ of the population opposes gay marriage or supports the proposed ammendment? Does in matter that almot 80% of the population supports restricting abortion in some manner?

We live in a republic/representative democracy here. Perhaps one day the opinions of the majority will change, until then, it is perfectly constitutional for the majority to control government benefits and try to protect what they see as people.

Originally posted by Eis
But lesbians are ok then, I mean they can get a sperm donor and start bringing children into the world.

I'm sorry to be this blunt but cut the bullshit, the reason you don't want gay marriage to be legal has NOTHING to do with taxes, it's a moral thing.

Lesbians would require a sperm donor. They couldn't do the job without a donor.

I never said I don't like it from a moral standpoint. It is a moral thing as far as my belief about their marrying, but the argument I presented is valid and I would argue it because you do not have the same view on the morality of homosexuality as I do. It would be incredibly stupid of me to get up in a court or gathering of politicians and say "I'm sorry gays go against my religion don't let them marry." And I do believe that there is no decent argument for legalizing homosexual marriage. I have never heard one. They claim the benefits and tax cuts as their argument for legalization, my argument should be based on theirs. As far as recognition of the marriage being valid, a law won't do anything to make the majority of religious people against the marriage view it as valid. So that argument is a bunch of crap. Lastly, other than benefits and taxes what other reasons are there for legalizing it?

Sorry to be blunt, but if you thought an intelligent person would argue from a losing stance you are not very bright yourself. I agree with my argument presented, and I also disagree with homosexual marriage on a religious stance as well, but I wouldn't presume everyone should agree with my religious views.

Originally posted by docb77
How did we get this discussion out of my post about what happiness is?

And as long as we're having the discussion...

Does it matter at all that 70%+ of the population opposes gay marriage or supports the proposed ammendment? Does in matter that almot 80% of the population supports restricting abortion in some manner?

We live in a republic/representative democracy here. Perhaps one day the opinions of the majority will change, until then, it is perfectly constitutional for the majority to control government benefits and try to protect what they see as people.

The majority should have an acceptable reason for its stance on a controversial subject. I disagree with many things due to religion, but I also disagree with limiting someone based on my beliefs alone. If I have the opportunity to vote on a subject I will vote as my religious beliefs dictate, but most laws are decided by those acting for the people, not for the majority of people. They should limit decisions restricting the minority unless there is a strong valid argument supporting a restriction.

I just wanted to show that there are arguments that are not just religion based. If you would like the subject dropped, I will, but I enjoy this banter.

I don't mind the debate, I was just confused how it started.

Originally posted by docb77
I don't mind the debate, I was just confused how it started.

I think you stated that the US was utilitarian, and Eis responded with homosexual marriage doesn't hurt the majority so why isn't it legal, then he said it's all due to your religious views, so I pointed out how it could hurt the majority, and argued without employing the moral/religious reasoning.

If I have the opportunity to vote on a subject I will vote as my religious beliefs dictate

Lol, you're vote won't be you voting either finti. It'll be whatever philosophies you subscribe to are dictating as well. Don't say it'd be otherwise. Behavior is a function of its consequences, and you are a slave to whatever has worked for you in the past. I would vote based on my religion because its ideals/morals tend to result in a positive outcome. So, my vote would be dictated by the reasoning I have learned based on that religion, in effect my religion would dictate my vote. Don't think so superficially finti, you seemed to think better than that.

Lol, you're vote won't be you voting either finti.

It'll be whatever philosophies you subscribe to are dictating as well.

Behavior is a function of its consequences, and you are a slave to whatever has worked for you in the past.

I would vote based on my religion because its ideals/morals tend to result in a positive outcome

So, my vote would be dictated by the reasoning I have learned based on that religion

Don't think so superficially finti, you seemed to think better than that.

Originally posted by finti
it would cause it would be of how I view things not on how other view it for me
I dont buy shit so I wouldnt be dictated to any so called philosophies, I go by what I!!!! feel is best
past didnt work for me so.............I had to do turn the table a bit...........you know change the certain aspect of things.....................only works if you try to abandon the way your thought or think the way you were thought......or to put it easy open your eyes

You can claim you make your own decisions, but in the end it all comes down to your experiences. You can't deny that people have influenced the way you think. Nothing that is you was not influenced by others, that is impossible. "past didn't work for me so............I had to do a turn the table a bit..." so because of something not working for you, you changed your views, behavior was a function of its consequences then, at least according to you.

Philosophy refers to whatever your reasons are for doing whatever you do, doesn't have to do with anyone else, other than the fact that whatever you decide will be based on what someone (you or someone else) has done at some point, whether good or bad in your mind.

Originally posted by finti
thats were we differ you tend to keep it within boundaries set by others , me on the other hand question it all and as long as me as the main person says things and stuff doesnt fit me fuc*k it
yeah brainwashed is another word for that reasoning. Again your reasoning your views on behalf on what others said and wrote ............arrimarigotto mr Roboto

You question everything...what are you questioning? I bet you are questioning some others, and if so you are defining your stance on whatever topic based on your questioning. Would you have come to the same conclusion without them? What would you have questioned? Your method of coming to your decision was based on someone else. Again your reasoning your views on behalf of what others said and wrote ............arrimarigotto Opposite mr Roboto

Originally posted by finti
at least I think without the aid of those who tells you how and what to think, burst the bubble and meet the real world and maybe you be able to have an none self aided ejaculation

Ummm, right back atcha 😉 being on the outside of the bubble you are just as closed as I am, it's mighty purty inside my bubble, nice swirling shapes and lights....or are you the one inside the bubble, and I'm the one outside 😱 seems you are so intent on questioning everything perhaps you miss a lot by not accepting some things. I don't think my view is necessarily that threatening to yours, for such a strong attack you must be relatively insecure of your own 😉

Lesbians would require a sperm donor. They couldn't do the job without a donor.

What I'm saying is that you couldn't care less about taxes, because you don't support civil unions either. It's a moral thing, and you're using taxes as an excuse so that you won't seem like a religious fanatic.

The United States doesn't need more people, the population of the world is already too great. Because gay people can't help keep overpopulating the world they should not get married?
What about all those children who do not have homes, gay people would be more than glad to welcome them to their house and love them like their own.

Originally posted by Eis
Doesn't change the fact they can very easily bring children into the world. Bottom line, they get the job done.

They don't get the job done without aid, marriage doesn't increase the probability of it happening, my argument still stands

Originally posted by Eis
What I'm saying is that you couldn't care less about taxes, because you don't support civil unions either. It's a moral thing, and you're using taxes as an excuse so that you won't seem like a religious fanatic.

No, I don't care about taxes, it is a moral thing for me. Doesn't change the tactics I would use to stop it from happening.

The argument is valid, children are future taxpayers and people are a major resource. Is that argument invalid? Is there another reason for the marriage being legal other than benefits and tax breaks that has legal ramifications? If not then there is no reason to legalize it.

I never claimed that I didn't have moral issue with it, I just stated that those are the arguments I would use. I am not a religious fanatic, I just totally disagree with the need for legalizing homosexual marriage, and since I am morally opposed to it I will argue against it.

I think you should state the reasons you believe that legalizing homosexual marriage is necessary. It doesn't hurt anyone, isn't a good enough argument to sway the majority of people, state your argument clearly. Also, if you don't have an argument then why are you pushing this?

Then why don't we discuss what you really think, why is homosexual marriage so bad?
And please avoid all that tax non-sense.

Originally posted by Eis
Then why don't we discuss what you really think, why is homosexual marriage so bad?
And please avoid all that tax non-sense.

Why would you care about the religious reasons for it being wrong? I haven't read enough of your posts to know where you stand on the subject of religion. What is your religious stance? Are you Christian (meaning subscribing to the Bible)? Are you atheist, what is your stance? It would seem stupid to discuss the morality of the subject without first knowing where you stand.

All the same I will state my stance. I have stated I am Mormon (LDS), and I am, I also have a fairly broad knowledge as to LDS literature. If you disagree with this it is irrelevant. I will not be stating this as a piece I will bother defending later, because this is merely my opinion on the morality of the subject. If you want to ask questions to gain a better understanding I may answer, but if it comes across as an attack I'll just ignore it. I enjoy debate, but this is not a subject that is fully dependable due to the amount of personal opinion it encompasses. I do not necessarily have anything backing some of it up other than that's what I think.

My stance -

First - Homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. Procreation and progression are the purpose of mans existence. Homosexuality does not serve either of these purposes. Homosexuality does not aid in procreation. Homosexuality does not aid in making a person better in any way. Lack of harm does not justify its lack of worthwhile benefit.

Second - Marriage is a union that inhibits an individuals contact with another partner outside the marriage relationship. This is to maintain the protection and sustained care of the wife and children by the husband. Marriage also ensures the husband of exclusive sexual relations that may result in conception of his offspring. Marriage does not have any purpose other than to create a dedicated environment for procreation, any other purpose really did not require marriage to accomplish. Yes, marriage is about sex, children and very little else. Everything that goes with it is just bonus that goes along with procreation. Love, friendship, affection, name a few others... they all just aid in ensuring procreation occurs, and that the parents will care for the children.

Third - (This is my personal speculation, and you would probably have a difficult time finding anyone with a similar stance. It is heretical as well as blasphemous by most peoples religious views) I believe that evolution probably occurred, and is probably a very accurate portrayal of how life reached the point it has. I think that it is egotistical that we would be the high point of evolution. I believe that somewhere in the infinite past God evolved. I believe that our God is a being that has a ancestry that at one point in time was at the point in evolution that man is. This is not to say he is not what everyone believes God is, merely to say that at some point in time Gods evolved. I believe he created us at nearly the level of evolution we exist today. I believe that due to his immense omnipotent knowledge he has placed us here, and has us doing something that is necessary for him to aid us in evolving to the level that God exists at. He does this due to the evolutionary drive to procreate, which all successful living organisms share. I believe that there are specific manners of behavior that are necessary to achieve a higher level of existence. These specific manners of behavior must be adhered to to achieve the purpose God has for man. So man may not go to hell, but he may be damned, forced by his actions to a state that does not allow him to progress as designed by God. These behaviors are the commands that God has given as to self control and self mastery. I also believe that man is required to place others above himself to prove that he will continue with this as he is made able to create an infinite number of people. So a no harm argument, if it does not take the welfare of others above oneself is often wrong. By welfare I mean an increasing in the likelihood of another reaching his/her full potential.

So, homosexual marriage doesn't fit with my view of the purpose of marriage. Also, homosexuality doesn't fit with my belief as to the purpose of man. Also, homosexuality may in the act itself hold a possible evolutionary limitation that we are aware of.

There you go. Now that is mainly speculation on my part mixed with some opinion and religious view. It is a statement, and I could care less what everyone else thinks. I will not argue any aspect of it. I could clarify it perhaps, but I may not clarify if I don't feel like it. Also I must state that this is not Mormon belief, it is my speculation and opinion. Do not make the assumption that any other Mormon would have this view, I would assume that they would attack much of this statement as heatedly as you would.

I will be gone for a few days on a business trip, so if I don't respond to any statements before I leave, it may be a while before I am able to, if I ever decide to.

Oh, and for whoever suggested I don't have a woman in my life, I have been married for over one third of my life. I would assume that type of comment comes from someone that has never gotten more than something on the Internet. (Yes, that was an insult. I'm not perfect, and never claimed to be.)

First - Homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. Procreation and progression are the purpose of mans existence. Homosexuality does not serve either of these purposes. Homosexuality does not aid in procreation. Homosexuality does not aid in making a person better in any way. Lack of harm does not justify its lack of worthwhile benefit.

Second - Marriage is a union that inhibits an individuals contact with another partner outside the marriage relationship. This is to maintain the protection and sustained care of the wife and children by the husband. Marriage also ensures the husband of exclusive sexual relations that may result in conception of his offspring. Marriage does not have any purpose other than to create a dedicated environment for procreation, any other purpose really did not require marriage to accomplish. Yes, marriage is about sex, children and very little else. Everything that goes with it is just bonus that goes along with procreation. Love, friendship, affection, name a few others... they all just aid in ensuring procreation occurs, and that the parents will care for the children.

So, homosexual marriage doesn't fit with my view of the purpose of marriage. Also, homosexuality doesn't fit with my belief as to the purpose of man. Also, homosexuality may in the act itself hold a possible evolutionary limitation that we are aware of.

Your whole argument comes down to "Gay men cannot procreate" well I'm sorry to break your bubble but procreation is not a must. Gay men are just as much not worthy or getting married as infertile people.

And the "Gay people are a blasphemy in the eyes of god" argument, is simply irrelevant for the millions of non-christians in the US, so you should respect their opinion and allow them to do what they want, plus they already don't believe in god, one more sin can't hurt can it? 😛

By the way, I don't have a religion, I'm agnostic but I'm also Buddhist. Although I see Buddhism as a philosophical opinion not a religion.

Originally posted by docb77
How did we get this discussion out of my post about what happiness is?

And as long as we're having the discussion...

Does it matter at all that 70%+ of the population opposes gay marriage or supports the proposed ammendment? Does in matter that almot 80% of the population supports restricting abortion in some manner?

We live in a republic/representative democracy here. Perhaps one day the opinions of the majority will change, until then, it is perfectly constitutional for the majority to control government benefits and try to protect what they see as people.

Couldn't have said it better myself.