*Kails*:
you know some folks view interracial marriage the same way right?

birdman: ^I dont agree with half of thoth's 10 points, but there are at least 3 points he makes that have nothing to do with interracial marriage. Im pretty sure mixed couples can have babies.

Denise216: The premises of nature and procreation are weak and inconsistent.

Procreation: Consider the global human population, only a small percentage in comparison can even afford to sustain the children they make, creating an added burden on limited resources. Humans have no need to further produce offspring. In fact children these days are no more than a means to secure financial resources for women from government a/o willing males. This is true in developed and undeveloped regions.

Nature: Humans have conquered most of nature but we champion it all while we type/txt our responses on cordless electronic devices in air conditioned rooms with artificial light sources. Humans living in areas contrary to their evolved physical characteristics is in of itself against nature.

Oh, and there is no God to offend or dictate morality. Sorry kids, Sky Daddy is a myth.

thoth:

I fail to see the point on your reference to procreation, do you mean to say that Homosexuality is nothing but a means to reduce human population ?

You should first try to understand what is Nature , what the laws of nature are . then you can see that your assumption that humans CONQUERED NATURE IS WRONG, in the sense that it contradicts itself by its own definition.
If you have never given it enough thought i can save you the headache by informing you that humans have never conquered nature and there has never been any plan or effort to do such, rather humans try to UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF NATURE and with that knowledge improve their life standards. everything you have mentioned above is based on the law of nature and how deep it is understood, electromagnetic waves were not created by humans rather humans used its laws(enforced by nature) to make their life better and once you deviate from those laws which guide it your whole endeavor will fail. modern communications technology is based on either optics(laws of light) or electromagnetic(laws which guide movement of energy in space) and both are natural laws. so is all technological inventions that man has ever had.

earth has only one source of energy, which is the sun and based on Natural Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can not be created no destroyed rather we can turn the natural sunlight to chemical energy then transport and back to light energy to light our rooms.

Talking about God, i will rather believe you when can give me a reason to believe that there is no God.

In all your post makes not sense at all.

Denise216:

Starting with a "Do you mean that" is an attempt to misrepresent. Procreation isn't a valid premise to dispute the virtue of same sex marriage. That is my perspective, no more, no less.

Denise216:
And yes humanity has conquered nature and there is no contradiction. The human need to understand nature isn't driven by curiosity, it is to conquer it for the use of sustaining the species at best. Everything else your in reply in regards to nature is filler. Sometimes I wonder if expanding on unnecessary/unrelated details should even be considered a qualified rebuttal.

Until you can prove that there is a God, and you can't, it really doesn't matter if you believe me or not. If anything it's an arrogant attempt to place priority on your personal perspective on my time. I wouldn't suggest doing that, it's intrusive.

thoth:

Some one dictates for us her perspective and without reason no explanation tries to force it'down on us , and we should accept for no other reason just that it is her perspective. Sorry but we are not your subjects Queen Denise.



can you read yourself ? how do they even conquer it ? maybe you can explain for us what you mean by conquer in this context.



A simple anthropological research will inform you that humans from time immemorial has valid reasons to believe in God, though reason might differ by geographical extensions but they all contain the same underlining attribute which is the inability to explain certain aspects of nature coupled with profoundly deep philosophical excursions into oneself and the unanswered questions that arose from such.

Falling about without raising facts and ordering people to accept your stance is a pure example of arrogance.

Denise216:

Your issue is more so with my gender more than my post. Just keep in mind that you having an issue with my biology is just that, your issue-not mine. Moving on.

Applied science has allowed mankind to survive and thrive in conditions unheard of in the last 5 centuries. The natural consequence of pregnancy, a basic human function, has even been averted. There were valid reasons to believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that certain peoples were meant to serve others by divine or natural law. All of these perspectives were proven wrong. You can expand on man's relationship with nature or "God" to include nuances but the fact remains that Nature, and the non existent God, are no longer viable reasons to intrude on the rights of tax paying citizens in any society.

Antivirus92: The day nature will allow unlike charges(of magnets or electricity) to attract is the day i will turn to gay. For now,nature(GOD) is still ruling me.

thoth:

You know what baffles me is how you have made several post without ever trying to give a reason to accept your proposition, you just proclaim something and expect that we must accept that, have you ever defended a thesis in your life ? or you just tell your audience to accept what you said or go jump themselves.

Applied Science has allowed mankind......... what is science ? if not an inquiry to nature, is there any form of science that does not arise from curiosity of finding ways solve human inefficiencies by exploiting natural laws ? you thrive in whatever condition you are implying is a fact that humans understand Nature now better than before then and nothing else.

Is avoiding Pregnancy or contraception not a result of careful observation of the Natural Process of inception and therefore with such understanding it could be avoided where inadequate ? contraceptions has always been part of many civilizations for centuries because they carefully observed the Natural process by which it occurs and with knowledge of other natural processes the were able to avoid or terminate pregnancies.

The topic is "10 reasons why Homosexual marriage is harmful and must be Opposed" so if you are going to post again please make a post that has points we can use.

some things were proven wrong and one of those things which has been never been proven wrong was that there is God. if it has been proven then you can refer us to your proof.

Denise216:

I don't require acceptance for my perspectives anymore than the OP should. None of the points, particularly the ones I've chosen focus on, are legitimate premises for opposing same-sex marriage in any given society.

Lets take your example of plants/herbs used as contraceptives/abortion inducers; This was not their original purpose in nature but humans found a way to use harness its properties for a desired consequence. That is Applied Science by definition. What you're expanding on is Pure Science. There is a clear distinction between these terms. I don't know if you're expecting some long reply but its unnecessary.

pazienza: What is natural and what isn't,is a cyclic arguement.

To me,anything that can occur in nature,is natural. Homosexualism, racism,theft,fornication,adultery,teenage pregnancy,etc, can occur in nature,so are all natural.

Antivirus92: The day nature will allow like charges(of magnets or electricity) to attract is the day i will turn to gay. For now,nature(GOD) is still ruling me.

thoth:
how would you classify a baby born with one big green eye, a gill, two bat like wings, reptilian scales and instead of two legs she has four dinosaur like legs. She is purely carnivorous and poikilothermic.
Would that be classified as natural ?

pazienza:

Natural but rare, since she is still part of nature.

thoth:
but you won't call that a human being;would you ? even though it was born by a human.

pazienza: Often than not,what is natural is never socially acceptable. For example,it is natural for any person to want to pluck a ripe mango fruit he saw on his way that is not in his land, if he were to act on his natural instinct,he should be plucking that mango fruit, but his sense of socially acceptable norms would stand between him and his natural instinct.

So,we can see that morals and norms were put in place,as a way to check mate man's natural instincts,for what the society believes will be beneficial for all.

Marriage as an institution was put up to by the society to protect the woman.

By natural we mean that our subject is in compliance with established natural laws and therefore not an anomaly. In that sense humans are supposed to give birth to humans and not snakes likewise snakes should not give birth to humans as same as homosexuality and its likes.

thoth:
sorry but none of what you just described is natural. It is natural for any sentient being to protect what he perceives as his property, whether it be its offspring,shelter,sexual partner or even his Mango. Not plucking a mango that does not belong to you is not decision that arose from dissenting from your natural instincts rather it comes from being aware that you can be in serious trouble for doing that so i would rather describe that as a natural instinct in man to protect itself from harm. Nobody pushes man to reject its natural instincts in this situation.
You should desist from adopting the neo liberal perversionist definitions of nature as they only promote such notions to further make their crazy habits like homosexualism acceptable.
Marriage as an institution is a necessity to protect mankind, it has never been to protect the woman and it would never be.
Anthropological evidence shows that there are coupling(marriage) in diverse races and tribes even before the knew about each other. You can not say that hausas taught the zulu to marry or that our colonial masters taught nigerians to marry, you can't even say that the austrialian aborigines do not marry before their first contact with the outside world. Even animals form pairs and procreate. From that you can see that marriage between the opposite sex is purely natural phenomenon. You can say human(of opposite sex) started pairing up starting from XXXX BC or that animals started paring up from some dated period. So marriage started when humans started, in other words marriage as a natural attribute of many sentient beings humans being among them.

thoth:
sorry but none of what you just described is natural. It is natural for any sentient being to protect what he perceives as his property, whether it be its offspring,shelter,sexual partner or even his Mango. Not plucking a mango that does not belong to you is not decision that arose from dissenting from your natural instincts rather it comes from being aware that you can be in serious trouble for doing that so i would rather describe that as a natural instinct in man to protect itself from harm. Nobody pushes man to reject its natural instincts in this situation.
You should desist from adopting the neo liberal perversionist definitions of nature as they only promote such notions to further make their crazy habits like homosexualism acceptable.
Marriage as an institution is a necessity to protect mankind, it has never been to protect the woman and it would never be.
Anthropological evidence shows that there are coupling(marriage) in diverse races and tribes even before the knew about each other. You can not say that hausas taught the zulu to marry or that our colonial masters taught nigerians to marry, you can't even say that the austrialian aborigines do not marry before their first contact with the outside world. Even animals form pairs and procreate. From that you can see that marriage between the opposite sex is purely natural phenomenon. You can say human(of opposite sex) started pairing up starting from XXXX BC or that animals started paring up from some dated period. So marriage started when humans started, in other words marriage as a natural attribute of many sentient beings humans being among them.

pazienza:

You see! What's natural and what isn't would always be a cyclic arguement. Why would he not pluck the mango he saw on his way? U said it's because of his fear of the consequences of such action, but who will make him pay for that action? The society. What standard will they use to decide his punishment? The societal laws that were set by the society.

So, the everyday man had been instilled with the fear of the consequences that would result,if he decides to follow his natural instincts,and not the societal set and acceptable standard.

thoth:


It is not cyclic in any way though you have made tremendous efforts to make it appear to be so, it is not the society that would make him pay for his actions rather it is the owner of the Mango that would try to teach him a lesson about respecting other people's property, since it is universally inbuilt in humans to know what is right and wrong, on the case whereby the owner feels he is not capable of conducting the punishment solely then he employs the aid of his neighbors and friends and the later provides his assistance based on the same universality of right or wrong.
society is not a being, society is a constitution of ¹humans cohabiting in a distinctively identifiable geographical location.

the concept of right and wrong on issues like stealing,killing fellow humans,greed, envy and sex is universal to mankind, i believe 8000 years ago you will find it in all the continents even though they don't know each other.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: in this sense we are discussing specifically about the human society, other societies might exist but that is not the object of our discussion.

*Kails*:
@thoth and birdman yes, IR couples can reproduce. Absolutely they can.

but some folks are still adamant that GOD CREATED DIFFERENT RACES FOR A REASON and thus we should not mix. Obviously being the product of both IR and Bi-Ethnic relations I am here and do not support that view (eh well... ) but all I am saying is to each his/her own. People have their reasons why they do things and others will have their reasons why what is done is wrong.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here

As for me: Homos3xuals as a group are not bothering me so I don't care what they do.

pazienza:

It just occured to me that you have not really given me your own understanding of the word "natural", for the sake of this our discussion,could you please give me a definition of the word "natural".

By natural we mean that our subject is in compliance with established natural laws and therefore not an anomaly. In that sense humans are supposed to give birth to humans and not snakes likewise snakes should not give birth to humans as same as homosexuality and its likes.

thoth: [size=16pt]10 Reasons Why Homosexual “marriage” Is Harmful And Must Be Opposed[/size]


1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)



http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html