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

[thegamerslink]

A better way to put it perhaps...........

sex is the natural act of reproduction(logical truthful) sex for a reason other than reproduction is unnatural(illogical untruthful)

You have the idea right you're simply applying it backwards.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

A better way to put it perhaps...........

sex is the natural act of reproduction(logical truthful) sex for a reason other than reproduction is unnatural(illogical untruthful)

You have the idea right you're simply applying it backwards.

It's very interesting how you've put all this. I commend you on your dedication to science and logic. But, oh yes here comes the but. You have just made nature one sided to your error. Every thing has two sides. In nature; natural and unnatural. You've said, and I quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

sex is the natural act of reproduction(logical truthful) sex for a reason other than reproduction is unnatural(illogical untruthful)

If sex IS natural in the act of reproduction then, why isn't it safe to say... That sex pleasure (lust) done not for reproduction isn't natural? That would complete the other side wouldn't it. All this individualist thinking only allows for that individual to be correct. Me, I'm right. Even in science errors occur because some individual said, "Me, I'm right".

But it doesn't not always make them right. Even when in most times in science, people will agree that it is right because that person attaches his signature and scientific credentials on it. But it's never absolute truth.

On big flaw in individualistic thinking is that the individual has more control than he really does. How egotistical a man can be to think this. When a plane could fall on his head. How is he going to use his own free perspective to avoid that? We must come to realize our own limits. That will free us even more to what our real potentials are. Not the muck of confusion. This over individualistic perspective seems even more bound to the collective opinion. Why? Because of course everyone wants to think that they control everything or at least that they think they can.

Let me attempt to make put this in a logical sentence.

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

sex for a reason other than reproduction is unnatural(illogical untruthful)

Sex to commit rape -unnatural. (logical and truthful) Hence, any other intercourse would be unnatural or lust uncontrolled.

Don't get me wrong thegamerslink, people are going to continue to have sex of any kind no matter what I say. And controlling sex to it's natural sense will take time (years of practice). But that is what I mean by sex in the natural sense and why gay marriage or sex for pleasure without the intent of procreation would be deemed unnatural.

[thegamerslink]

I'm thinking you're arguing simply for the sake of arguing at this point and losing common sense in the process.

Put it like this, my wife had a tubal ligation 8 years ago. So when we have sex(make love) now there is no chance of conception. Not without devine intervention any how. It is still a natural act for us to have sex. An act that I encourage as often as possible :-)

Sex has a purpose for reproduction that is true, but it also has a profound impact psychologically as well. And to humans this emotional and physical need is natural.

I don't know where your visions of society and the human species are coming from but they are very discerning to say the least.

[krahmaan]

I only said uncontrolled sex can lead to acts like rape. It also can lead to infidelity. Marriage is supposed to last a lifetime, it says that in most religious books. But uncontrolled lust, is still unnatural because it can lead to acts that wouldn't be normally partaken or which are 'oddities'.

I'm not telling you not to have sex or anyone else. But me myself, I cannot argue with nature. For I've been practicing controlling myself for a while now. It's been two years of me not having sex (and boy was I a ladies man in the past), two years for me to even gain a glimmer of these truths.

So for the sake of me just arguing as you say, well then... You win this debate. Happy?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

I'm not telling you not to have sex or anyone else. But me myself, I cannot argue with nature. For I've been practicing controlling myself for a while now. It's been two years of me not having sex (and boy was I a ladies man in the past), two years for me to even gain a glimmer of these truths.

Think about this for a moment.
There's a reason why you are "controlling yourself" and I'll guess that it's not because you have a strong urge to have children.
Sex is pleasurable in nature and it doesn't matter how many people are involved (1,2,3 or 100) and it is pleasurable for both men and women.
If sex was only for reproduction in nature, then we wouldn't see homosexuality or masturbation in nature, but we do.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Zap

Think about this for a moment.
There's a reason why you are "controlling yourself" and I'll guess that it's not because you have a strong urge to have children.
Sex is pleasurable in nature and it doesn't matter how many people are involved (1,2,3 or 100) and it is pleasurable for both men and women.
If sex was only for reproduction in nature, then we wouldn't see homosexuality or masturbation in nature, but we do.

Well kick me while I'm down won't you, it's OK. I've already thrown in the towel on this debate. But if you'd like to win this debate also then I now give 2nd place to you, thegamerslink already has 1st. So I'll take 3rd.

But I won't be giving away my 3rd place bronze -mind you. So I'm sorry to anyone else who wants to beat this dead horse! But all comments are still welcomed, and I will respect your opinions.

I would like to define sexual intercourse though. Sex (intercourse) is defined as: sexual union between two individuals. Meaning, some sort of penetration has took place. Masturbation defines as: to produce orgasm by manipulation of the genitals, exclusive of sexual intercourse. The two are not the same.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

Well kick me while I'm down won't you, it's OK. I've already thrown in the towel on this debate.

That wasn't my intention. Good luck with your quest to control yourself. I hope you succeed. Two years, though!
I couldn't do it.

[my_misyel]

Some countries already "practicing" this right?
For love is pure and if you think you'll be happy. Then it is not a problem anymore.
But am glad, am not gay! hahaha!

[thegamerslink]

trntyvnll,

Same exact study that I read, fact of the matter if you want to be real logical about this is, there are those that have chosen to be bisexual, or not have sex with the opposite sex, and there are those that have a biological disposition towards one side of the sexes, then there are those that are just psychologically unstable and aren't sure which way they are supposed to swing irregardless of it all.

Science at it's best is not absolute, psychology even less so. All that can be done is to make what we feel to be educated guesses and all the studies and all the discussions, and thoughts on the subject are going to conclude the same way. There are several different reasons, none of them can be confirmed or denied free of argument or doubt. And definitely not free of prejudicial influence.

The inability to prove something beyond argument does not disprove it's possibility or existence, just as we have learned in our past, proving something to the point we think is beyond argument does not prove it beyond argument. Nothing more so fits that category than anything dealing with Psychology or the human brain.

[Chad Michealstork]

i think less and less people are marrying for love anyway and more are marrying for friendship and companionship

[thegamerslink]

regardless the reasons for marriage, the traditional, religious definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that religious definition should not be dictated by the state. A civil union on the other hand, something that countless couples have had done over the years. That should be allowed regardless of sexual orientation. That would make things all nice and simple now wouldn't it.

[Chad Michealstork]

it would suck to not be able to marry who you want, but on a positive note if you cant marry who you want then you cant get hurt or hurt the person you want the most

[pgzn]

The subject of this thread is misleading. No gays have ever been prevented from being married. Anyone can get married, I believe you can even marry a horse. I saw it happen on Springer many years ago. Which begs the question (the subject of this thread also) "what if I love my horse?".

But the state shouldn't be involved in any of them, not even the ones they are currently sanctioning. Separation of church and state??? Isn't that what the leftists are always preaching?

[krahmaan]

^ I certainly won't be marrying a horse, or a dog. And I most definitely won't be teaching my children to marry those either. I will simply tell them the truth. I'll let my wife tell my daughter what the vagina is for, and I'll tell my son why he has a penis and what naturally happens in procreation. Nothing more, nothing less -other than to make sure he cherishes his wife and never to just see her as an object for sex. But for love and a happy home.

Anything else is brainwashing and out of context I think.

[pau2x]

Gay marriage is still a sin in the eyes of God and religious people. It's only the human being who have rules on gay marriage and it's not accepted in God.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by pau2x

Gay marriage is still a sin in the eyes of God and religious people. It's only the human being who have rules on gay marriage and it's not accepted in God.

Amen.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by pau2x

Gay marriage is still a sin in the eyes of God and religious people. It's only the human being who have rules on gay marriage and it's not accepted in God.

Thank god we have seperation of church and state, otherwise the authorities would still be kiling everyone who doesn't believe in the bible-god like they did in the dark ages.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Thank god we have seperation of church and state, otherwise the authorities would still be kiling everyone who doesn't believe in the bible-god like they did in the dark ages.

Thank who?

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by OnceAgain

if 2 men are to each other so why not let them get married....

I believe I gave a good answer to that very question

regardless the reasons for marriage, the traditional, religious definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that religious definition should not be dictated by the state. A civil union on the other hand, something that countless couples have had done over the years. That should be allowed regardless of sexual orientation. That would make things all nice and simple now wouldn't it.

It is not as much a matter of semantics as a matter of who is it that initially defined not only the term, but the institution of marriage? It wasn't the state that did so, it was the church, or religion that did so. This being, it is only the church, or religion that has the true right to redefine how marriage is defined.

The state has the legal civil union. If it so decides to redefine it's allowances then that is the states choice and responsibility.

[Ferre]

I agree with you gamerslink. In my opinion the state (meaning governments in general) should stay out of the churches' marrying businesses, it's up to them (religions) who, why and how they prefer to marry people and it's no business of the church (meaning religon in general) to interfere with how the state wants to define or carry out legal civil unions.