The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2022, 05:29:26 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Same Sex Marriage
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 Print
Author Topic: Same Sex Marriage  (Read 29221 times)
FalconMWC
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1059


Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #75 on: March 18, 2004, 05:43:55 am »

The reason that he is providing both "sides" facts is because he wants both sides to know all there is to know abou the subject.
Logged
Culture20
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


Thraddash Flower Child


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #76 on: March 18, 2004, 07:05:09 am »

Cigarette smoking is actually a health issue; and prohibition was enacted partly because the drunks back then where breaking other laws (getting too roudy).
Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3866


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #77 on: March 18, 2004, 07:26:17 pm »

Quote
P.S. Death999 I'm curious on where u stand on this, u seem to make points for both sides, are u for, against, or just don't give a damn?


I am for gay marriage, as the overwhelming predominance of my points have illustrated.

The one part I think you might be thinking of where I seem to argue against it is where I refer to it as a sin.

This was part of my trying to convince someone of its wisdom within his set of axioms, one of which was that homosexual acts are sins. Given that I could not dislodge that axiom, I had to assume it in any argument I intended not to be immediately dismissed.
Logged
Chrispy
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Vlik Dweller


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #78 on: March 18, 2004, 07:34:40 pm »

But sins should not have legal relavence. Its true that many sins and crimes are the same (murder, theft) but they are not the same. Jealousy is a sin, but no one would dream of making it a crime.
Logged

Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3866


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #79 on: March 18, 2004, 07:37:10 pm »

Note that I was arguing FOR civil gay marriage within the assumption that it WAS a sin.

SO, what you just said was the core of my argument.

From a legal standpoint, it should be permitted, even if in the eyes of God it is abominable.
Logged
Chrispy
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Vlik Dweller


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #80 on: March 18, 2004, 07:39:08 pm »

So we're in agreement.
Logged

Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 19


dark horse disney


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #81 on: March 23, 2004, 11:41:58 am »

11:10  
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
 
11:11  
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
 
11:12  
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Sayyyyy, they're talking about shellfish there, aren't they?

I could quote verses about unicorns, nothing being poisonous, contradictions, death proscription for copulating with a menstruating woman, etc.. But we all know I would be wasting my time.

What I want to know is whether homosexuality is wrong because gOD says so, or because it is inherently immoral.

Logged
Culture20
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


Thraddash Flower Child


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #82 on: March 23, 2004, 08:27:29 pm »

What you're asking there is something philosophers have been trying to ascertain for a long while: "Is God above good, or is good above God?"  It's a straw-man falacy though, the unspoken answer is the one accepted by Judeo-Christian believers: "God and good are one and the same."
Logged
Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 19


dark horse disney


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #83 on: March 25, 2004, 03:11:22 am »

If they are one and the same, then murdering a ten year old would not be wrong unless gOD said it was. I beg to differ.

I ask again: If gOD did not condemn homosexual behavior, would it still be wrong?
Logged
Culture20
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


Thraddash Flower Child


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #84 on: March 25, 2004, 09:35:44 pm »

And I repeat again; you're asking a silly question.  God does not condone homosexual behavior (in humans; who knows about animals), just as he does not condone murder.  His condoning or condemnation aren't governed by an outside measure of what is right though.  According to Judeo-Christian theologians, He _is_ right (not in the sense of being in accordance with the truth, but in the sense of being the truth itself).  
He's also not a judicial dictator who just arbitrarily decides what is right and what is wrong, (unless you believe comparison to Himself to be an arbitrary measure).

To sum up:  If I said yes to your answer, I would be saying that "good is above God".  If I said no, I would be saying that "God is above good".

Another facet:  I suppose one could go the route of Plato and look at the word "wrong" and remove any implications about spirituality.  At which point the question would be like asking "is 2+2=5 wrong?".  Then you could say:
Q: Functionally, what is sexual intercourse for?
A: Continuation of the Species
Q: Does Homosexual sexual intercourse fulfill this role?
A: No.
In that sense, it could be considered wrong even if it weren't a sin.

Edit: Just realized that it was Plato's ethics that dealt with fulfilment of purpose, not Aristotle's
« Last Edit: March 26, 2004, 06:12:51 am by Culture20 » Logged
Chrispy
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Vlik Dweller


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #85 on: March 26, 2004, 03:42:26 am »

Homosexual marriage is not for procriation (duh). I am not a homosexual, and maybe picowoof could correct me though I don't know if he still frequents this forum, but it is done for pleasure.
Logged

Culture20
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


Thraddash Flower Child


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #86 on: March 26, 2004, 06:12:01 am »

Pleasure is a by-product which is intended to make people (creatures in general) want to reproduce.  I know that children aren't produced from a homosexual union (that was my point in the Platonic reasoning above).
Logged
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175



View Profile WWW
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #87 on: March 26, 2004, 07:16:36 am »

Under that line of reasoning, intercourse between a husband and wife who are trying to conceive, that does not result in pregnancy, is "wrong".

As "wrong" implies "something to be avoided" in the ethical sense, I think you have used a "weighted" term to make your case.  Thanks for playing.
Logged

"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth."  --Fry
Chrispy
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Vlik Dweller


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2004, 03:23:49 am »

The biological purpose of sex should not restrict peoples rights. They arn't indangering the human race. Your right, people arn't born gay, its a decision people make. But they should have the right to that decision, and still be treated like everone else.
Logged

Culture20
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


Thraddash Flower Child


View Profile
Re: Same Sex Marriage
« Reply #89 on: March 29, 2004, 06:42:58 am »

Quote
Under that line of reasoning, intercourse between a husband and wife who are trying to conceive, that does not result in pregnancy, is "wrong".

As "wrong" implies "something to be avoided" in the ethical sense, I think you have used a "weighted" term to make your case.  Thanks for playing.


If you're trying to concieve, "not resulting in pregnancy" is what you're trying to avoid.  BTW, I never said Plato was a great ethicist; he's just commonly studied.  Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!