Peo said:
Should only people who can reproduce be allowed to marry?
I've already addressed this question. Not every Marriage will include children, because not every Marriage is between people who can have children. That's fine, but it doesn't change the meaning of Marriage just because sometimes it doesn't include children.
The main reason I'll point out is that the proven best environment in which to raise a child is a Marriage. Now again, some marriages will be abusive and will not be an ideal environment. But that's not because of the meaning of Marriage it's because of human failure. Marriage is fundamental to a family structure, and as such is the reason I truly believe Marriage is about family - even when children are not present.
To your question about heterosexuals who engage in anal sex just let me say I'm not saying they shouldn't engage in it, but I am saying that it isn't a healthy form of sex.
Daniel said:
Even heterosexuals don't always have sex to reproduce.
Perhaps not. But from time-to-time they
do have sex to reproduce. Something homosexuals do not do.
Archbob said:
Ok, the point of sex is not to reproduce. When 17 year olds have sex, it certainly not for the sake of reproduction, its for the sake of pleasure. I'm sure many heterosexual couples have sex for the sake of pleasure also. Pleasure is also a purpose and both homosexual and heterosexual sex serves that purpose.
Archbob you're drawing a strawman, because sex is natural and healthy. You're pointing out that "pleasure" is something they share in common and that's fine. But you still have to acknowledge what they don't share in common: 1. Heterosexual sex serves the purpose of reproduction which no other form of intimacy does. 2. Heterosexual sex is natural and healthy, anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy even if it is pleasurable.
Archbob said:
The state by banning homosexual marriages is not really protecting anyone or anything. Its just upholding certain religous beliefs, which is wrong for the state to do. Its ok, if you don't believe in homosexuality, no one is forcing you to do it. You just can't go around enforcing your belief on others. If two homosexuals get married, it does not effect you in any way since you are not involved in the relationship.
You're arguing here straight from your mouth with no substance to back up your argument.
http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showpost.php?p=581180
Try addressing some of my actual points. Anyhow your assumptive-circular arguing is going nowhere. By changing the definition of Marriage you're the one who's imposing your beliefs on others, as Canuckkev put very well.
Archbob said:
You can disapprove someone's lifestyle and not practice it yourself. But what you are trying to do is ban them from doing it, and you can't do that.
I'm not trying to impose bans, homosexuals are not banned from getting married. Everyone who wants to get married must do so within the law, and within the definition of marriage. You're the one who's trying to impose your proposed legal redefinition of Marriage.
Archbob said:
Homosexuals may dissapprove of your heterosexual ways, but they aren't pushing to ban heterosexual marriages.
Oh you aren't serious. Please, show me one person who truly finds heterosexuality morally wrong and disapproves of it in the same way that heterosexists disapprove of homosexuality, finding it morally wrong.
Archbob said:
Its life saying "I dissaprove of you eating beef", "Therefore we are going to make if illegal for people to eat beef".
It's not unhealthy to eat beef. But just so you know, the old Biblical commands given by God to the Ancient Jews not to eat certain meats have today been shown to be in the interests of their health. For instance pork contains many parasites that the Ancient Jews would have been eating if it wasn't for those commandments. Anyhow I'm just showing you why that's not comparable here.
Archbob said:
And really there is nothing about homosexuality that makes it "unhealthy".
You've clearly not paid attention to anything, and are arguing from your "gut beliefs". The problem is that you think you just inherently know best are not willing to examine the truth of the situation. That's the definition of a "closed mind". The same goes for Robert:
Robert said:
... I believe in equal rights. 100 years ago every party believed that blacks were inferior to whites. Thanks to Martin Luther King and other strong advocates, that has changed.
You're talking about people who were denied legal rights based on their ethnicity. How has this got anything in common with homosexuals who partake in a
chosen lifestyle demanding we redefine the institution of Marriage?
Archbob said:
Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.
Another circular strawman argument.