Should the constitution be amended to ban gay marriages?

[otseng]

Bush Presses for Ban on Gay Marriages

President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry and John Edwards.

Does the constitution need to be amended to ban gay marriages?

[Chancellor]

Homosexual attraction is unnatural. Throughout nature we see male and female coupling for the purpose of procreation. Same-sex coupling, when it does occur, is an anomaly, i.e., something that is contrary to nature.

Homosexuality does occur in nature. I've got some gay penguins here that showed up in the news recently ... what say you? http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork ... 10/591.asp[/url]

There are anomalies in nature. It's silly to try to define natural as simply that which occurs in nature. You might just as well say that because disease occurs in nature that we shouldn't do anything about disease since, after all, your definition of nature says disease is natural.

[ENIGMA]

All of this sanctimonius talk of what is "natural" and "unnatural" is a laugh...

Medicine is unnatural since it is a human-made and human-utilized set of materials designed to delay and ideally prevent death, which is the natural result of life. That is even moreso the case for modern medicine.

Houses are unnatural since they are human-made and human-utilized structures designed to place a barrier between its occupants' living area and the natural environment that surrounds it.

Telephones are unnatural since they are human-made and human-utilized devices designed to convey voice and data across tremendous distances, effectively eliminating the need for either person or a messanger to traverse the distance between the two.

The internet, which all parties here are using to have this debate, is unnatural because it is a human-made and human-utilized network for the conveying of data from the connected computers to be viewed at the leisure of all parties connected, en masse, bypassing many of the various "natural" obstacles to communication such as distance, terrain, location, etc.

Now for the big one...

Civilization is unnatural, because it is a human-made and human-utilized ideological construct, built on the basis that in developing such a human community, the members of said community would benefit overall from its existance as opposed to the previous state of living alone or in small groups in nature.

A large portion of the idea that somehow unnatural=BAD and natural=GOOD came from, if memory serves, Aristotle, the pagan who happened to serve as a basis for Christian thought and understanding of the world for about a millenium.

[Corvus]

A large portion of the idea that somehow unnatural=BAD and natural=GOOD came from, if memory serves, Aristotle, the pagan who happened to serve as a basis for Christian thought and understanding of the world for about a millenium.

In this is instance, I dont think natural has anything to do with what is "common to life" or "occurring without artifice", which is what we would normally consider as natural. I was stumped by this earlier, since anything that can happen must be natural to me. What Chancellor means by "unnatural" is "contrary to what a supernatural being intended".

[Chancellor]

All of this sanctimonius talk of what is "natural" and "unnatural" is a laugh...

Medicine is unnatural since it is a human-made and human-utilized set of materials designed to delay and ideally prevent death, which is the natural result of life. That is even moreso the case for modern medicine.

Houses are unnatural since they are human-made and human-utilized structures designed to place a barrier between its occupants' living area and the natural environment that surrounds it.

Telephones are unnatural since they are human-made and human-utilized devices designed to convey voice and data across tremendous distances, effectively eliminating the need for either person or a messanger to traverse the distance between the two.

The internet, which all parties here are using to have this debate, is unnatural because it is a human-made and human-utilized network for the conveying of data from the connected computers to be viewed at the leisure of all parties connected, en masse, bypassing many of the various "natural" obstacles to communication such as distance, terrain, location, etc.

Now for the big one...

Civilization is unnatural, because it is a human-made and human-utilized ideological construct, built on the basis that in developing such a human community, the members of said community would benefit overall from its existance as opposed to the previous state of living alone or in small groups in nature.

A large portion of the idea that somehow unnatural=BAD and natural=GOOD came from, if memory serves, Aristotle, the pagan who happened to serve as a basis for Christian thought and understanding of the world for about a millenium.

Sanctimonious talk? Christian thought came from Aristotle? Utter nonsense! Much of Christian thought is based on what we now call the Old Testament, most (if not all) of which existed prior to Aristotle, the rest of it is based on what Jesus and His chosen Apostles taught in the first century. Of course, there are people who will make up just any kind of falsehood to avoid having to be accountable for the truth of God's word and, so, they make up things like Christian thought came from Aristotle, etc.

What is natural is Creation as God created it. That first sin in the Garden of Eden negatively affected all of Creation, which is why there are things like disease, death, predators, prey, poisonous plants, venomous snakes, etc. Thus, everything after that first sin is unnatural in the sense that it is not the way God originally created it. Homosexuality, in particular, is unnatural because it is entirely contrary to God's created design for male and female.

[ENIGMA]

Sanctimonious talk? Christian thought came from Aristotle? Utter nonsense! Much of Christian thought is based on what we now call the Old Testament, most (if not all) of which existed prior to Aristotle, the rest of it is based on what Jesus and His chosen Apostles taught in the first century. Of course, there are people who will make up just any kind of falsehood to avoid having to be accountable for the truth of God's word and, so, they make up things like Christian thought came from Aristotle, etc.

What is natural is Creation as God created it. That first sin in the Garden of Eden negatively affected all of Creation, which is why there are things like disease, death, predators, prey, poisonous plants, venomous snakes, etc. Thus, everything after that first sin is unnatural in the sense that it is not the way God originally created it. Homosexuality, in particular, is unnatural because it is entirely contrary to God's created design for male and female.

I rather resent your implied accusation of intellectual dishonesty, however I think it is possibly understandable as a result of a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Note that I said "Aristotle, the pagan who happened to serve as a basis for Christian thought and understanding of the world for about a millenium.". There is a reason I made this distinction. It is because the worldview adopted by the Christian establishment between the time of acceptance of Chrstianity in Rome and the Renaissance, was littered with a plethora of hellenistic ideas, many of which were either developed or echoed by Aristotle.

Quick examples off the top of my head:
The alchemistic idea of the elements (fire, wind, water, earth) with "the heavens" (i.e. planets, etc) made of a completely different type of material (quintessence) as it appeared to follow different rules.

Might makes right, or the general notion that it was just for the strong to rule the weak, which typically carried over into dealing with women and slaves.

The idea of "normal" and "violent" motion (i.e. Things that are still or falling downwards as opposed to the motion of an object flying in the air that defies, for a duration, the normal effects of falling).

The use of epicycles in order to "fix" the geocentric understanding of the solar system and universe..

etc...

Anyway back to the whole "natural" vs "unnatural" discussion:

The problem with your whole argument is that it apparently attempts to forcefit a meaningful condemnation of homosexuality onto your holybook which gives condemnations by the bucketload which are not adhered to today. Your standard for something being unnatural seems particularly loose, leaving me to wonder about why such a devoted believer as you seem to be are currently using your "unnatural" computer which resembles nothing like your god's original creation.

[mrmufin]

The text of H. J. RES. 56 in the House of Representatives on May 21, 2003 reads:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups."

Where does it say anything about homosexuals? Homosexuals can still marry, just not to members of the same sex.

Marriage, if nothing else, is a civil contract wherein the contracted parties are entitled to certain legal benefits, including recognition of union in all fifty US states, the ability to make unlimited tax-exempt transfers and gifts to each other, the right to make health care decisions should the spouse become unfit or incompetent, to all the inherent pleasure of filing a joint tax return.

Consider 2 hypothetical same-sex couples, Bruce and Russell and Linda and Sue. All are legal adults, and none are closely related. By the text of the proposed amendment, nothing precludes any one of these persons from marrying by virtue of their sexual orientation. Linda or Sue could marry either Bruce or Russell, in which case gays have married. Only if Bruce tries to marry Russell or Linda wants to marry Sue would the marriage be unconstitutional, hence the benefits of marriage are being denied as a matter of gender, not sexual orientation.

Both Linda and Sue and Bruce and Russell may be cohabitating, raising children, enjoying meaningful, loving, trusting, caring long-term relationships with their respective partners. Nothing in the proposed amendment attempts to eliminate any of the consensual, non contractual components of life partnerships among same sex couples. The discrimination happens when a couple is denied the benefits associated with marriage by virtue of the gender of one of the participants in the civil contract.

What puzzles me is the empty claim that allowing same sex couples to marry somehow "devalues" the institution of marriage. If the gay couple cohabitating down the street decided to marry, I probably wouldn't even know about it, much less be able to assert that their union impacts my marriage at all. By the same logic, if the heterosexual couple across the street fight all the time, it has no bearing on my marriage.

IMHO, the proposed amendment plays on homophobia in an attempt to enact a gender discriminatory Constitutional amendment. If homosexual marriages are such a grave threat to Truth, Justice, and the American Way, why not write the amendment something like,

<sarcasm>

"Because allowing homosexual persons to marry would surely do enormous damage to Truth, Justice, and the American Way, no homosexual person should be allowed to enter into the civil contract of marriage, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of the other proposed party. When applying for a marriage license, the State and Its Agents reserve the right to verify the asserted sexual orientations of both parties. Further, any person failing the State Certified(TM) sexual orientation examination will be required to wear a yellow armband in order to divert marriage proposals from other persons."

</sarcasm>

Regards,
mrmufin

[Iconoclast]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to have sacred marriages, as consensual sex should be reserved for heterosexuals. Instead, a new union should be proposed for homosexuals that advocates a stable homosexual environment with loving and caring parents.

[mrmufin]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to have sacred marriages, as consensual sex should be reserved for heterosexuals.

A civil marriage contract is not a sex license.

Instead, a new union should be proposed for homosexuals that advocates a stable homosexual environment with loving and caring parents.

Would such a union entitle its participants to the same state-sanctioned benefits as marriage?

Regards,
mrmufin

[Iconoclast]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to have sacred marriages, as consensual sex should be reserved for heterosexuals.

A civil marriage contract is not a sex license.

Instead, a new union should be proposed for homosexuals that advocates a stable homosexual environment with loving and caring parents.

Would such a union entitle its participants to the same state-sanctioned benefits as marriage?

Regards,
mrmufin

I believe that homosexual unions should have more benefits to it's participants than heterosexual marriages. The reason for this is clear; homosexuals have been treated rather 'poorly' throughout history, and to compensate for the disadvantage of not being able to have offspring.

I didn't mean that marriage was a sex liscense, but I truly believe that both heterosexual and homosexual sex is far greater with either a marriage or a union.

[mrmufin]

I believe that homosexual unions should have more benefits to it's participants than heterosexual marriages. The reason for this is clear; homosexuals have been treated rather 'poorly' throughout history, and to compensate for the disadvantage of not being able to have offspring.

I disagree. No special benefits are in place for infertile heterosexual couples, nor couples who elect not to have children, nor couples where the woman is post-menopausal, etc. Besides, same sex couples could always adopt children.

I didn't mean that marriage was a sex liscense, but I truly believe that both heterosexual and homosexual sex is far greater with either a marriage or a union.

Technically, I am not currently, nor I have I ever been, married. Thus I have no means to make such a comparison.

Regards,
mrmufin