Forums | MacLife

Anyway, if your point is that the penises and butts are meant for each other and that it becomes the job of the government to stop them, then why only limit it to penis/male butt interactions.  Do you also support, based on this logic, suppression of oral sex, male/female anal sex, handjobs, masturbation, and pearl necklaces?  Or at the least, do you see those as things that fit together as poorly as male anal intercourse?

...and what good are such religious beliefs if you think you need to force people to obey them?

If I take a smurf on a street corner, 95% of the American public would find that distasteful. It's not illegal, but they don't like it because it violates their basis of "decency".

On that same token...

If I take a smurf on a street corner, 95% of the American public would find that distasteful. It's not illegal, but they don't like it because it violates their basis of "decency".

On that same token...

You're blurring the line between what directly affects the rights of other and what doesn't...

Not unless they step in it.

If I take a smurf on a street corner, 95% of the American public would find that distasteful. It's not illegal, but they don't like it because it violates their basis of "decency".

On that same token...

You're blurring the line between what directly affects the rights of other and what doesn't...

Not unless they step in it.

No one is asking for the right to smurf on the street corner.



*edit*  And I meant contrasting your example with the marriage example.  I would say that smurfing on a street corner would in fact violate the rights of others, for a number of reasons.

Anyway, if your point is that the penises and butts are meant for each other and that it becomes the job of the government to stop them, then why only limit it to penis/male butt interactions.  Do you also support, based on this logic, suppression of oral sex, male/female anal sex, handjobs, masturbation, and pearl necklaces?  Or at the least, do you see those as things that fit together as poorly as male anal intercourse?

...and what good are such religious beliefs if you think you need to force people to obey them?

If I take a poop on a street corner, 95% of the American public would find that distasteful. It's not illegal, but they don't like it because it violates their basis of "decency".

On that same token...

It's public nudity, it is a health risk to everyone, and is a misuse of public property.  It is illegal and directly and physically affects everyone.

It's public nudity, it is a health risk to everyone, and is a misuse of public property.  It is illegal and directly and physically affects everyone.

In short, bad example.

{folds hands up in front of mouth like Gendo in the avatar}:

Yes...

as perhaps a better example, its like trying to say that american style toilets are what our bodies are designed for (as exampled in oolatec's avatar) and that we shouldn't have squat style toilets

Or perhaps that GOD, in fact, intended for humans to squat (ala Asian style toilets) and the mere existence of western-style toilets is an abomination...more than likely from:

1.  Satan

2.  God trying to 'tempt' us.

Anyway, if your point is that the penises and butts are meant for each other and that it becomes the job of the government to stop them, then why only limit it to penis/male butt interactions.  Do you also support, based on this logic, suppression of oral sex, male/female anal sex, handjobs, masturbation, and pearl necklaces?  Or at the least, do you see those as things that fit together as poorly as male anal intercourse?

...and what good are such religious beliefs if you think you need to force people to obey them?

There is one belief that morals are based not on a bunch of rules that you have to follow for no reason but to appease God but are a set of "best practice" guidelines.  It is wrong to kill because it harms others and others can kill you as well.  By following rules such as that, we make our lives happier.  In cases like that, forced morality becomes a good thing by forcing me to do what is best for me in the long run.

The problem with the above is when the guidelines of morality fail to properly guide someone to the "good life."

There is one belief that morals are based not on a bunch of rules that you have to follow for no reason but to appease God but are a set of "best practice" guidelines.  It is wrong to kill because it harms others and others can kill you as well.  By following rules such as that, we make our lives happier.  In cases like that, forced morality becomes a good thing by forcing me to do what is best for me in the long run.

Sure, but such morals existed before Jesus.  Similarly, there is a reason to enforce such morals when they happen to also be actions that impede upon the rights of others.

There is no truth in debate.

???

Please, please, please give an indication of where you are quoting from.  If its right under someone else, no big deal.  If its two pages back, it really helps to use the ="someone" thingy so I can reasonably figure out what they hell you are talking about.  Not that '???' is much of a point to make, but hey, maybe I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and see what is confusing.  So I want to see the context in which whatever was said, but I lack photographic memory.  So now I have to click back and search each page for the above phrase, hoping that I don't miss it.  Had you given me a poster name, I could just scroll down, but no, I have to look carefully.

Anyway, I think the point that was made was that debate is not a good mechanism by which to uncover truth, which watching the legal system and the academic system at work, I'd say I buy into that to some extent.  If you want truth, best to go find a monastery, preferably Trappist.

Anyway, I think the point that was made was that debate is not a good mechanism by which to uncover truth, which watching the legal system and the academic system at work, I'd say I buy into that to some extent.  If you want truth, best to go find a monastery, preferably Trappist.

Umm, you sorta got my point, but not entirely.

A monastery is definitely not a place to find truth. Truth is something you find through proof. Although proof is rather hard to find in the physical realm.

This may be a side note, but I think it's all about the discussion. Debate is proving right or wrong to the other. Discussion is getting new ideas for finding right or wrong yourself.

Debate is not proving right or wrong. That is done by deduction. Debate is trying to convince the other party (or onlookers) of your point of view (which is irrelevant of any possible truth).

,xtG
.tsooJ

Anal sex has nothing to do with marriage, same-sex or opposite-sex.

People may choose to participate in a variety of sex acts, married or not. It is impossible to know what sex acts every couple engages in.

because there are two types of humans...males and females.  they each have their own sexual organs.  one fits into the other.

two males can't fit into each others sexual organs, two females can't fit into each others sexual organs.

I've always hated this argument as bad as "it's a sin.  Period."

It's based entirely on test tube biology and totally ignores our social nature.  Look at a bumblebee in a test tube and they aren't supposed to be able to fly.

Sorry I went off topic.

ha ha, what in the world are you talking about....  where in the world did you get "it's a sin" out of all that?  i was talking about the human anatomy.

I was making a comparative statement.  Perhaps I should have said "as much as" instead of "as bad as."  Maybe then you would have understood.

Regardless, your argument is void in my book.  And so is "it's a sin."

To your credit (and a point I wish to stress to the other posters), you have never said anything in this post about God not wanting or allowing gay marriage or gay sex.  You have never said "it's a sin."  Ash did.

If you look at two male cadavers on an operating room table, you can plainly see that they are unable to reproduce.  The same with two female cadavers.  You look at one of the male cadavers and one of the females, and you say, "ah!  These can reproduce."

But we aren't cadavers.  We are living, breathing, thinking, emotional creatures.  Love can't be found in a laboratory or seen under a microscope.

That's why your argument holds no weight.