ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

[Marisa]

The point you are missing is that none of your "sexual logistics" matters in the context of what marriage is.
Sexual attraction or the ability to put your sexual equipment in bizarre places doesn't magically change your gender.

Of what consequence is gender?

 

[SomeRandom]

The point you are missing is that none of your "sexual logistics" matters in the context of what marriage is.
Sexual attraction or the ability to put your sexual equipment in bizarre places doesn't magically change your gender.

So you admit that sexual logistics doesn't matter in terms of marriage. But still deny marriage to people based on sexual logistics?

 

[Ponder This]

So you admit that sexual logistics doesn't matter in terms of marriage. But still deny marriage to people based on sexual logistics?

Let's examine that:
what you called "sexual logistics" appears to amount to the ability to have an orgasm
but I point out that sex exists because there are two primary genders in our species.
and, in fact, if that weren't the case, marriage wouldn't exist...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point you are missing is that none of your "sexual logistics" matters in the context of what marriage is.
Sexual attraction or the ability to put your sexual equipment in bizarre places doesn't magically change your gender.

Sex is far more than just using your sex organs. The brain, for instance, is the most powerful sex organ we have, and when you involve your brain it makes sex better.
And, according to some men who have, willingly, removed their penis and testicles, they are still very capable of experiencing a sexual release and pleasure.
As for myself, I've always gotten far more pleasure out of giving to a partner and pleasing her. Having an orgasm (which happens maybe about half the time anytime anyways), for me anyways, does not compare to hearing her extacy, seeing her face, and her pulling me to her face to kiss, caress, and gaze deeply into her eyes. And of course naked snuggles are always great!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but I point out that sex exists because there are two primary genders in our species.

You may wish to educate yourself on the difference between sex and gender. And educate yourself on how other cultures have approached gender (it isn't uncommon to find cultures that have had three-to-five different genders).

and, in fact, if that weren't the case, marriage wouldn't exist...

That is untrue. Our modern concept of marriage is, well, modern. Many cultures, including the West until modern times, have had marriage not as something of love, but of something for inheritance, property, power, and very often it was something for the families to be united, not the individuals involved in the marriage.

 

[Marisa]

Let's examine that:
what you called "sexual logistics" appears to amount to the ability to have an orgasm
but I point out that sex exists because there are two primary genders in our species.
and, in fact, if that weren't the case, marriage wouldn't exist...

Marriage exists because kings needed to form alliances. Historically it was a system wherin a man traded his daughter for property. Hence the dowry.

 

[SomeRandom]

Let's examine that:
what you called "sexual logistics" appears to amount to the ability to have an orgasm
but I point out that sex exists because there are two primary genders in our species.
and, in fact, if that weren't the case, marriage wouldn't exist...

The fact that two people of the same sex are able to have sex kind of belies that statement. Or are you saying that in order to have "proper" sex it has to have "both genders?"

First of all. Gender is cultural, sex is biological.
Second, there is FAR more than two possibilities of both. Like there are hermaphrodites, intersexed people, many different genders (or none depending on what academic you speak to) people with like 3 or even 4 sets of chromosomes etc etc etc. So are they not allowed to get married now?
Third historically speaking in multiple countries/cultures marriage is not always even about the two sexes. In the west it was more about property (in more ways than one.) Some allowed two people of the same gender/sex to get married. Some just treated it like mechanical progeny. There were lots of different reasons for marriage, depending on the culture.
Today's version of marriage is based on mutual informed consent and nothing else.

 

[dgirl1986]

The point you are missing is that none of your "sexual logistics" matters in the context of what marriage is.
Sexual attraction or the ability to put your sexual equipment in bizarre places doesn't magically change your gender.

You assume that the only factor is sex.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Makes sense, but I'm not sure what this has to do with marriage.
Sexual orientation, whether it is genetic or epigenetic or whatever scientists "think", doesn't change the physics of sexual intercourse.

In other words, if you want to turn the lamp on in your room, you need the male connector on the lamp's power cord to plug into the female connector on your wall outlet.
A male connector won't plug into a male connector and a female connector won't plug into a female connector (feel free to try this at home as often as you like).
I'm not saying the male connectors can't get together and build a close relationship and vow to each other never to plug into wall outlets.
What I am saying is that the idea of marriage rests on the concept of two distinct genders.

In other words, if we were a unisexual self-replicating species, then there would be no marriage.

Since I like cutting to the chase, let's skip the convoluted analogies for a moment and ask a more pertinent question: what's your religion, if any?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since I like cutting to the chase, let's skip the convoluted analogies for a moment and ask a more pertinent question: what's your religion, if any?

Well, at least you're asking. I assumed Abrahamic, most likely Christian, because that member doesn't seem Jewish or Muslim, and other religions that are most likely tend to not have any issues with homosexuality.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's examine that:
what you called "sexual logistics" appears to amount to the ability to have an orgasm
but I point out that sex exists because there are two primary genders in our species.
and, in fact, if that weren't the case, marriage wouldn't exist...

Sexuality is FAR more than Tab A inserting into Slot B. People who not only narrow the definition of sex to that as the basis, as well as narrow our sexuality and our personhoods on the depressingly essentialist argument of sexual dimorphic characteristics, fail to realize the potential of our sexuality and sexual relationships AND our humanity as a whole.

Do we have these organs as humans? Sure we do. But so many variables exist that offer a closer look at our biology and our cultural conditioning of how we categorize love, intimacy, fidelity, commitment, and romance. The menstrual cycle and not the estrus cycle that exists in other mammals and primates. The development of subcutaneous fat in areas that offer more face-to-face mating. The libido that remains after infertility sets in. The existence of the clitoral orgasm in women and the pleasure of prostate gland stimulation in men. And there even with gender that we have become aware of the spectrum of gender identity as well as the spectrum that exists in sexual and romantic orientation.

We are a beautifully complex species with what is looking to be an infinite number of possibilities for how to relate and how to be intimate with each other. Why some people bemoan this is beyond me. I think it's exciting.

As others have pointed out, marriage historically has been more about lineage and inheritance and property acquisition than love. Marriage from love is a relatively new cultural concept, and one that began to develop as women began to gain economic and legal independence. As the concept of liberty and human rights have continued to develop and be refined, we continue to learn more and educate on sexuality and our drive for pair-bonding.

I mean....love and sex would be so BORING if we reduced it down to the assumed model of kiss-grope-disrobe-lick-suck-pump-squirt-snore model as the default. Cripes, that's depressing just thinking about it...

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, at least you're asking. I assumed Abrahamic, most likely Christian, because that member doesn't seem Jewish or Muslim, and other religions that are most likely tend to not have any issues with homosexuality.

I just want to see if the arguments we have seen so far are mere facades to leverage religiously inspired bigotry. That has often been the case with the homophobic arguments I have encountered.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just want to see if the arguments we have seen so far are mere facades to leverage religiously inspired bigotry. That has often been the case with the homophobic arguments I have encountered.

Well, there is the occasional atheist who does resort to such "incompatible" arguments, but the gross misunderstanding of marriage strongly implies Abrahamic. And the rest of Ponder This' arguments imply Christian (given the lack of Allah, G-d, or other terms that would suggest Jew or Muslim).

 

[McBell]

Makes sense, but I'm not sure what this has to do with marriage.
Sexual orientation, whether it is genetic or epigenetic or whatever scientists "think", doesn't change the physics of sexual intercourse.

In other words, if you want to turn the lamp on in your room, you need the male connector on the lamp's power cord to plug into the female connector on your wall outlet.
A male connector won't plug into a male connector and a female connector won't plug into a female connector (feel free to try this at home as often as you like).
I'm not saying the male connectors can't get together and build a close relationship and vow to each other never to plug into wall outlets.
What I am saying is that the idea of marriage rests on the concept of two distinct genders.

In other words, if we were a unisexual self-replicating species, then there would be no marriage.

Except the fact that the vast majority of marriages through out history had absolutely nothing to do with sex or love.
It had to do with politics, money, land ownership, and social status.

Now marriage is a legal contract.
Anything and evrything added beyond the legal contract is nothing more than fluff, window dressing, and frosting.

 

[McBell]

In that case, I would like to marry myself and receive all of the rights and benefits of being married because I do not require a partner to masturbate.

Edit: this is called "sexual logistics"

Actually it is called desperation.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults.

It matter not what you name your hand nor how good you are at it.

Now if you want to drag in your clone, we would have to figure out if making out with your clone is masturbation or an affair...
But that would be a topic for its own thread.

 

[McBell]

The point you are missing is that none of your "sexual logistics" matters in the context of what marriage is.
Sexual attraction or the ability to put your sexual equipment in bizarre places doesn't magically change your gender.

The point you are ignoring is the fact that marriage is a legal contract which has nothing to do with sex or love.

 

[McBell]

Let's examine that:
what you called "sexual logistics" appears to amount to the ability to have an orgasm
but I point out that sex exists because there are two primary genders in our species.
and, in fact, if that weren't the case, marriage wouldn't exist...

bold empty claim.
Care to try and support it with something other than more bold empty claims?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Well, that's anal rape, then. What about consensual homosexual sex between informed adults? Is that a sin too?

I think you already know what the God of the Holy Bible says.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

OneThatGotAway said: "Was he wrong in punishing Sodom and Omarrah for their sexual sins?"
We do not have any written record that God worked with them for the better; and we don't know whether God made any attempt to work with the people of Sodom and Omarrah.
Therefore, in my opinion, I cannot say that God was wrong because I do not have access to all of the events leading up to their destruction.

So your god left you with incomplete information, in a matter involving the complete destruction of a city containing thousands of men, women and children?
I mean, if you can't justify it on the basis of what is contained in the text, doesn't that say something?

Who says that the information was incomplete? In my opinion, what was recorded in the Holy Bible was enough information for Jews and Christians to read and determine why Yahweh God Almighty punished Sodom and Omarrah for their sexual sins.
The question was whether there was any recorded history of God doing other work to turn the people of Sodom and Omarrah away from their sexual sins. And today we do not have additional information on the other acts of God regarding those two cities. However, God's character has been vetted through other recorded historical events that would justify his unwritten detailed actions. For example, it is written that Yahweh is omnipotent and there would not be enough books on earth to contain all of the works he did to one single man or any life form.

We put our trust in many people without knowing everything about them. For example, people will board an airplane daily without knowing anything about the pilots. Everyday and night, they put their blind faith in them and other people have supposedly "vetted" them enough to the point of being stable, professional, and skillful to fly those airplanes. And I can say that those same people put their blind faith and trust in the mechanics of those airplanes, knowing full well that they do not have enough information on the condition of those airplanes. I can use the same analogy for makers of cars, buildings, bridges, elevators, roller coasters, etc. but you get the picture. Now, what does that say about people placing their very lives into the hands of people whom they little or no information on about them?

 

[Marisa]

I think you already know what the God of the Holy Bible says.

And as you should know by now, nobody cares but you.