May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The reason we, as humans, have a sex drive to begin with (plus, the complimentary equipment) is procreation. 

Homosexuality, running directly counter to that, demonstrates a clear and blatant disconnect from underlying reason.

This is the point where you have to explain exactly how that makes homosexuality immoral and wrong. Why do you disapprove of it on that account?

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, Sigmund wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 1:21PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 7:38AM, Sigmund wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 4:01PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Sigmund wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 3:34PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 3:08PM, Sigmund wrote:

You might be coming in late in the discussion. My objection is to the notion that the gay marriage issue is a struggle for moral justice or "equality" on par with the struggle of Blacks for basic civil rights. 

It's a philosophical objection. There can be no struggle for "equality," when none exists in objective reality.

Your second point is well taken. I wasn't advocating any partiuclar idea. I was merely pointing out a "third option" that has been brought up before, and Cesmom again made note of. 

Yet another, or fourth option, might exist, IMO. Simply making note of the difference between "marriage" in the strict legal sense, as a function of the state, and "matrimony" (if one wishes to use that term), in the sense of attaching a religious meaning to it. 

That way, there's nothing to get up in arms about, from a religious standpoint, if/when the state sanctions gay marriage. 

Thanks for your concern but I have read the whole thread and yes, it most certainly is a struggle for equality in civil rights.

You have just admitted that there is nothing "objectively unequal" about the desire for homosexuals to enter into marriage with a person of the same sex. Therefore they are being denied this civil right on a "subjective unequality" which I believe is motivated solely by religious beliefs as were the anti-miscegenation laws that were overturned as a result of Loving v. Virginia.

Any comparisons of issues related to homosexuality with issues related to inequality based upon skin pigmintation or other ethnic differences is a blatant apples-to-oranges mis-comparison. 

It's really no different than animal rights adovocates trying to equate the captivity of dolphins and orcas at SeaWorld with slavery. 

The subtext, and the underhanded tactic, is the same. Create a false "equality," try to compare it to a breach of real equality, and then level the charge that those who disagree with you are on par with the racial bigots, or slave owners. 

 I don't buy that as anything other than an attempt to poison the well, because no rational argument can be found.

Once again, this issue (gay marriage) is not about equality. It's essentially about tolerance and expanding freedom of choice for consenting adults. Nothing less, nothing more. 

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that denial of basic civil rights based on sexual orientation is different than the denial of civil rights based on skin pigmentation. None. You have merely asserted that it is so.

You have also admitted that there is no objective unequlaity in the desire of homosexuals to enter into the legal contract called marriage. Therefore they ARE "objectively equal."

So what is your basis for determining that homosexuals should not have, as the Supreme Court in Loving wrote, one of the "basic civil rights of man" ?

"Desire" is completely subjective. 

Really? Another assertion without anything to back it up. Are you saying that the ability to feel desire is subjective? Are you saying that it is subjective whether someone else feels desire? Are you saying that the concept of desire is subjective? What?

Please provide any objective evidence for your statement.

Also we're still waiting for some evidence that denial of basic civil rights based on sexual orientation is different than the denial of civil rights based on skin pigmentation.

Who is "we?" Are you referencing yourself in the royal third person?

"Gay people want it too" is not a sound argument for re-defining marriage. It's an appeal to subjective desire. All sorts of people want all sorts of things. That does not mean they've got it coming, simply by virtue  of wanting it.

Treating groups differenlty according to skin pigmentation violates a real, objective equality -- the axiom that all human beings have the same intrinsic value.

Giving primacy to one sexuality over another -- espeically when the latter demonstrates a clear break from underlying reason of function -- is neither unfair or discriminatory.

A human being is not defined by their sexual desires.

What more "evidence" do you need, other than basic rationality and reason?

There is no "equality" here. Gay marriage is not about "equality."

If our laws can make room to expand the choices of consenting adult couples regarding whom they want to marry -- then so be it. 

May 25, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Ken wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 1:48PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Ken wrote:

I keep asking you why the idea of equality between heterosexuality and homosexuality is "incredible" and "fantastic." I keep urging you to make a reasoned argument for your position. You don't. You never answer my questions. You never present a reasoned argument. Then you come back with what is little more than a cheap wisecrack. I can only conclude that you are in the grip of an unreasonable aversion.

The ideas and concepts have been presented in a perfectly clear form. Repeatedly. Quit asking for something that has already been given to you.

You have still not explained why you disapprove of homosexuality.

It's not about personal disapproval.

On a personal level, I don't care a damn about homosexulity. Or any other kind of sexuality. Whatever gets your rocks off -- just keep the noise level down or shut the doors and windows if I'm trying to sleep next door, and I'll return the favor when I'm gettin' randy. 

This is about objective principles, and the irrational claim that there is an "equality" between hetero and homosexuality. 

May 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But, procreation is the reason we have a sex drive in the first place.

B.S. To quote a friend of mine, "Women need a reason to have sex; men just need a place." 99.999% of sex is to get off. Sex can (and frequently DOES) happen outside of marriage. Procreation can (and DOES) also happen outside of marriage. Most sex does NOT result in procreation.

May 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

After all, to cite only one example, how else would a woman who had already been through the ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth ever want sex again, if it were not pleasurable, fun and condusive to bonds of deep affection with her mate?

See, even you admit that it is "pleasurable, fun and condusive to bonds of deep affection" with a mate. No need for them to BE married. No marriage required for them to have sex. No need for them to procreate, yet again.

You are NOT even making your own point here.

May 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Now, if gay men simply could not ejaculate semen containing sperm, or if lesbian women never ovulated, the premise you suggest might make sense. There might be a sound argument for seperating sex completely -- in general principle, and not just in specific instance -- from procreation.

What a load of nonsense. Repeat that sentence and replace heterosexual for "gay" or "lesbian", and you'll see/hear how nonsensical it is. Good grief. Your thought processes seem to be deteriorating rapidly. Sort of like the  'cotton candy' (to use your in-apt analogy) thoughts of an immature child.

May 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And please note -- because people always try to bring this up too -- post-menupasal sex represents an exception of instance, not general principle.

And yet we as a society MAKE that exception. We make it because procreation is not a requirement of marriage - for any one at any time in any place.

May 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 The general principle of of male-to-female attraction still remains intact in that case. Therefore, there is still no fundamental break from underlying purpose, or reason.

There's not a shred of reason in these sentences. It's all blarney. Except, apparently, to you.