“What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?”

[thegamerslink]

That's the catch-22 of it, either way morals are being imposed on someone.

[thegamerslink]

I'm not a gay advocate just for the record so my arguments may not be what someone who is might have.

I do though feel that it is an individuals right to do whatever they desire to do as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

That being said, it is not for you nor I to assume the arrogance that we have it within us to determine what is natural for each separate individual. What you are proposing is a social moral structure and falls in line with collectivism not individualism.

You may or may not wish to be around those of what is referred to as an alternate lifestyle and that definitely is your choice, however it is also not your choice to decide that no one is allowed to have a lifestyle be it sexual orientation or other outside what you define as natural or acceptable to your morals.

An example would be along the lines of Flag Burning. Nothing wounds me more, makes me more angry and motivates me more to want to defend my country than seeing someone burning the American Flag in protest. But I know that in order to respect what she stands for I have to respect the freedom of speech of others regardless of how I feel about it. That ultimately is why I served in the military and if you ask a majority of those that are or have been in the military they I am sure will say the same.

[krahmaan]

As for collectivism, I am far from it. I don't fall for rumors or do I always go with the crowd's decisions. But I do stand for truth and clear thinking. I believe it's OK to respect another's view point, but to allow someone who's clearly confused to remain confused doesn't help their case at all.

I'll give you an example:

Let's say you have a close friend who starts to cut himself -right? Now never in the past has he ever done this to himself. But now there is a new movement that says it's cool to cut yourself. And I mean all over the face, legs, arms and chest.

Now, if I were to respect their newly found view point that it's 'cool' for them to continue cutting themselves then what kind of friend would I be? Not to tell them that these actions will make it harder for them to obtain a job, and succeed in life because people WILL start to think they're crazy for doing it.

For me to not practice cutting on myself, and then just sit back and watch my friend do so in some false righteous sense of respect. Then see mostly everyone is like "Dude, why do you keep cutting yourself? What's your problem? Why don't you just go get a tattoo and quit cutting yourself?" If I weren't to at least suggest that he stop for his own good, what kind of friend would I be?

It doesn't have anything to do with collectivism, it has to do with clarifying what many haven't got the guts to do. While in secret, they really don't agree with what the person is doing, but they act like so long as someone else is OK with it -they should be too. Just as long as it doesn't affect their life. But it still does!

I don't want to go here, but I will. What if what you were trying to teach your children, got undermined by the actions of someone who IS confused? I can see by your avatar, this extracurricular lifestyle doesn't seem too natural to you either. Or you would be following it yourself, wouldn't you? We all would, wouldn't we -in the natural sense of reproductivity? Of course, a lot of us wouldn't exist today -now would we?

If this doesn't satisfy you, look up sexual reproduction (in mammals of course). That's what sexual relations are really for -aren't they? Anything outside those lines turns into becoming unnatural my friend.

There's no double question here, or no hidden meanings. Hence, comes more confusion.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

It doesn't have anything to do with collectivism

When the group legislates what the individual can or cannot do for the supposed good of the individual, that's collectivism.

[thegamerslink]

That's about as far off base as you could possibly get on this argument. Your argument actually has no bearing on alternate lifestyles. I don't even know how to engage you in discussion after that.

But look, it's pretty simple, there is scientific evidence to support theory that there is in fact biological reasoning behind same sex attraction. There are in fact animals other than humans that do in fact prefer same sex and don't mate. This too is fact. Comparing someone that is cutting themselves all over because they suddenly think it's cool doesn't even come close to the same and hopefully you have the capacity to realize that, if not perhaps you are the one in need of some help.

It's also fact that that in ancient times it was same sex coupling was encouraged in some armies with the idea that this would make the men fight more fiercely and more as a unit protecting their partners. Homosexuality is as a very old practice.

[thegamerslink]

Sorry John, I was so set back by his comparison story that I forgot to define that for him, Thanks

[krahmaan]

OK I'm back, I went away from my computer to get a bite to eat. New posts, so soon? Good!

Well I do respect how you feel on this subject. In fact, I respect how everyone feels. But my argument has and always will be on natural reproduction. Something I see most have not tried to rebuke. When you can prove to me that natural reproduction is not between a man and a woman, then maybe I will accept gay marriage or homosexuality. Yeah, I've heard of the war tactics of homosexuality. But this has nothing to do with war, now does it?

Even in ancient times confusion existed also. As it still does today. About that definition of collectivism, that's good in all that you suggest to teach me it. Thank you. But if you were to see how I act in real life, then you would know I do not follow any trends. I never do what the WHOLE wants me to do, or the collective. My points were more on being suggestive not collectivism (too bad suggestivism isn't really a word).

My argument is to suggest something pure and natural, rather than something that never has been. Without the fear of popular opinion or hearsay.

[krahmaan]

Did you forget to look this up?

sexual reproduction

[thegamerslink]

you're fixating on an instinct not a basis for formation of a relationship/companionship. This may be confusing but not all people seek companionship for the sole purpose of reproduction.

And just with the animal kingdom, not every animal born breeds. There is the flaw of your argument. I believe your prejudice towards the subject has disallowed you to view it in perspective.

People masturbate, this does not induce a reproductive process, yet it is a normal process even though many find it a taboo subject to talk about.

Senior citizens that have exceeded the child bearing years still get married. Not for the purpose of reproduction, but for the purpose of companionship.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

you're fixating on an instinct not a basis for formation of a relationship/companionship. This may be confusing but not all people seek companionship for the sole purpose of reproduction.

And just with the animal kingdom, not every animal born breeds. There is the flaw of your argument. I believe your prejudice towards the subject has disallowed you to view it in perspective.

People masturbate, this does not induce a reproductive process, yet it is a normal process even though many find it a taboo subject to talk about.

Senior citizens that have exceeded the child bearing years still get married. Not for the purpose of reproduction, but for the purpose of companionship.

Maybe so, maybe I am fixating and maybe I do carry just as many prejudices as the next man. So what then do you say of death? There are many people who die at an early age, and cannot get married or reproduce. How about them? Is right for me to say that they wouldn't of been parents if they HAD survived?

Yes, there are many people who even claim it's 'cool', that they don't want to have children. But then, do they still have intercourse? Sounds hypocritical to me not to want children, and still practice the art of making babies. But who's to say they won't have them? Few condoms may burst, or maybe someone may ingest a defective pill -who knows? Then what? Conception has still happened, and now they'll be faced with an even harder decision. Do they commit the act of murder now, or do they own up to their responsibilities and actions?

Come on, let us discuss this as long as you like. Masturbation, what do you know of this masturbation? What does that have to do with it? A relationship is not between some one person and their hands. I know I don't want to marry my hand. I want to marry a woman just like my loving mother.

And companionship you say? Companionship can be between two good friends, and they're not doing each other or do they ever want to get married. Marriage implies raising a family, and raising a family implies reproduction -in it's natural sense. So where is the argument, where is the conflict?

Like I said before, when we stray from our natural selves we start this confusion. No matter how hard one beats one's head against the wall trying to make an argument against nature, the forces of nature will always win.

You know what a tornado looks like -right? How about a hurricane? Or have you ever been threw an earthquake? There's no creating an argument against those. If I were to even argue that, someone could even be dumbfounded on how confused I was.

[homebizseo]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

“What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?”

Then I would marry for money. A person of the opposite gender of course.

[thegamerslink]

I'm going to have to ask that you clarify you're position a bit. You are all over the map here and I'm having difficulty following what you're attempting to accomplish.

It seems that your main argument is that if there is no reproduction then there should be no marriage?

You've also stated that there is no other animal besides humans that have any sexual acts except to reproduce or that there are no animals that have not attraction or preference for same sex. In fact there are instances across the animal kingdom. Instances of different kinds of animals that refuse to bread with one another, animals that hump another animal of their same sex. And you can't tell me that a dog humping your leg is their attempt to breed a new leg? The animal kingdom is rife with oddities just like the ones you have denied existed.

And I didn't mean to excite you with the reference to masturbation, I was simply making a point that it was a common human act that does not induce reproduction. Something that you seem to be attempting to say does not happen in the natural world, in fact it does.

At any rate, let us attempt to isolate this discussion a bit so that we aren't talking in ten different directions at the same time.

[Zap]

Anyone who's married can tell you that it's as much about pooling resources as it is about sex. Sometimes moreso.
Same idea applies to sex. It's for reproduction, yes, but it's also for pleasure.
You could argue that, in humans, the purpose of sex is more often for pleasure alone and not for making babies.

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by Zap

Anyone who's married can tell you that it's as much about pooling resources as it is about sex. Sometimes moreso.
Same idea applies to sex. It's for reproduction, yes, but it's also for pleasure.
You could argue that, in humans, the purpose of sex is more often for pleasure alone and not for making babies.

Yeah I doubt that seeing that the average couple that does have children has 2-3 of them, that that means they only have sex 3 times the entire time of their marriage...............although after a long marriage 3 or 4 times ever 6 months? LoL!!

[krahmaan]

OK guys let me level with you, since you keep making the same argument. I'll try and state my case a whole lot simpler, without the use of any EXAMPLES here.

In its natural sense, sex IS and WAS only intended for reproduction. And reproduction in its NATURAL sense, IS between a MAN and a WOMAN. Whether they are married or not.

[thegamerslink]

Don't you think though, one of the things that separates mankind from the animal world, beyond simple intelligence is the capacity for emotion, empathy, compassion and passion?

You're definitions of Sex is completely stripping those elements from it. That's not what motivates the human race. If raw instinct was all that motivated us we would still be in the stone age. Don't you think?

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Don't you think though, one of the things that separates mankind from the animal world, beyond simple intelligence is the capacity for emotion, empathy, compassion and passion?

Those are all good elements of human nature which you speak. But you have left out one... Love. Lust for sex, or uncontrolled passion (where the natural instinct to mate or to have intercourse then becomes unnatural) is far different than love.

I'll tell you why this type of passion becomes unnatural. When lust is uncontrolled, people start to do things they wouldn't normally (naturally) do. This can even turn into a 'forced' copulation. This is why sex turned into lust makes doing it unnatural from it's natural sense.

I don't disagree that lust isn't an easy thing to control, but for someone to let it continue to be uncontrolled. Then, make up an excuse like getting married just have sex and never intend on trying to reproduce will make it unnatural (heterosexual or homosexual). Of course, there are many people who do get married just so they can be free to have sex uncontrolled without discretion. But that is what makes the whole marriage out of lust, and not out of love.

I feel, gay marriages are only being done to get away with this uncontrolled lust. You could also say that this is part of my argument too I guess. You argue so well. But you yourself must know people out there who thought they were in love, when in reality they were only in lust. What would you call such a person? I myself would have to take pity on such a person, and just say that they were confused.

Uncontrolled lust actually brings a noble man's status of being the hight of creation, down closer to that of the animal and sometimes even below it.

[thegamerslink]

Your concept of marriage is sad. I'm sorry but that is the impression you give. Marriage is not simply an avenue to reproduce, that has never been the main reason for marriage in the modern world.

My statement of emotion covered love, what is love if not an emotion? Would it be safe to say that you have never been married? Just out of curiosity, and this isn't for sake of racism or anything, but, how old are you, and where are you from, what religion are you? This may help me understand your position a bit better.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Your concept of marriage is sad. I'm sorry but that is the impression you give. Marriage is not simply an avenue to reproduce, that has never been the main reason for marriage in the modern world.

Do you remember I only stated that sex not marrisge was only for reproduction (in the natural sense). But marriage does come with sex, even in unmarried couples. Just marriage keeps the children bore from being bastards.

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

My statement of emotion covered love, what is love if not an emotion? Would it be safe to say that you have never been married? Just out of curiosity, and this isn't for sake of racism or anything, but, how old are you, and where are you from, what religion are you? This may help me understand your position a bit better.

You did not mention love till now. But love is an emotion, there I agree. But it is a higher or the highest emotion that can be exhibited, it is not lust. Which suggest a purity, beyond just sex pleasure.

From one of your earlier posts you even agreed that nature is filled with oddities. And what is an oddity? An oddity is unnatural -isn't it? I have quoted part of your post here:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

You've also stated that there is no other animal besides humans that have any sexual acts except to reproduce or that there are no animals that have not attraction or preference for same sex. In fact there are instances across the animal kingdom. Instances of different kinds of animals that refuse to bread with one another, animals that hump another animal of their same sex. And you can't tell me that a dog humping your leg is their attempt to breed a new leg? The animal kingdom is rife with oddities just like the ones you have denied existed.

As for me ever being married, no I have not. But it is strange that you did not ask me if I ever bore children. I don't really think you could handle that story in full, for it involves things linked to racism and misunderstandings of religion, so I keep that left out. But I will tell you that I'm only 30 my friend.

[thegamerslink]

Oddities are something that I would consider to be outside the norm. But you have to say that is not unnatural. While it may not be natural to me, that doesn't mean it is not natural to someone else. This is where individuality comes in to play. In collectivism then all follow the same set of standards and those standards are set by the majority. In individualism the individual themselves set the standard under which they live.

An what I call an oddity of nature is referencing something that doesn't happen all the time, but since nature is what produced the oddity it can't then be considered unnatural(not of nature).

I also gave you proof in previous posts of biological connections to homosexuality. There are those out there who practice sex with the same sex by choice, and then there are those that do it from a natural desire/attraction. The mixture of the two enhances the difficulty to study the subject without results being skewed, however the one study using MRI and PET scans was a sound study.

So in summary you are misguided and confused on a couple of different topics, one, it is the individual that defines natural. two, marriage is a product of multiple things only one of which is sex. Actually sex has been the reason for many divorces. And three, sex is not an act only for reproduction, not in the human world, and not in the animal world.