Well, that sure makes things as clear as mud.

Msharmony, you're getting very hard to follow here. Not much of what you're saying now is making sense. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm having a tough time following you with all the talk about mandatory sex and fidelity. Not quite sure why you want some couples to be able to "marry" and have a civil union where fidelity shouldn't be an issue. You have lost me.

it heterosexuals do not have sex, noone(hetero or homo) will exist

its a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race

regulating it in some manner is like regulating food, which we also need, but want to keep safe so as not to contaiminate people


if homosexuals do not have sex, there is no affect on anyone, or on the existence of humans, its not a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race, its merely a choice that fulfills self with no extending consequences or affects anywhere else,,,


comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex is preposterous,,,and forcing a government to make them 'equal' behaviors is equally preposterous,,,,


the day the government decides to allow one homosexual to leave another because he wasnt sexually faithful

is the day that an adult brother and sister should be able to bring up the same charge against each other

because, like I have repeatedly been told, the children have nothing to do with the purpose of MARRIAGE since having children or wanting children are not necessarily requirements for heterosexuals to marry

we likewise cant prove that all adult siblings will want or have children, and should likewise not be making that our concern where 'marriage' is concerned, since marriage is supposedly not having anything to do with procreation or fertility,,,,,

If you are preaching, and if the choir doesn't understand what you are saying, then perhaps there is a problem with the way that you are delivering your sermon.

Having sex is not mandatory. Having children is not mandatory. Having sex solely for the purpose of having children is not mandatory. These are all choices that we make. So all this mandatory talk is not making sense.

SIGH

maybe I should number it

why marriage makes sense for heterosexuals

1. Marriages involve an EXPECTATION of sexual activity by the very nature of the fact that they can be ended for either sexual infidelity or lack of sexual consummation.

2. There is a NECESSITY for heterosexuals to continue having sexual activity for the continued existence of MANKIND.

3. THEREFORE, when considering the GENERAL nature of heterosexual unions to create life, it makes sense to encourage and promote and EXPECT those involved to take the responsibility to commit to each other and by extension any potential life they create.




why marriage doesnt make sense for homosexuals

1. Marriages involve an EXPECTATION of sexual activity by the very nature of the fact that they can be ended for either sexual infidelity or lack of sexual consummation.

2. There is no NECESSITY for homosexuals to continue having sexual activity as it has NO IMPACT on mankind or society.

3. THEREFORE, when considering the GENERAL nature of homosexual unions, to not create anything but momentary pleasure for those involved, it makes no sense to encourage and promote or EXPECT anyone to have such sex, let alone COMMIT to continuing having that sex with each other or anyone else.





THE ARGUMENTS THAT KEEPS BENG MADE

1. Having children has nothing to do with marriage because not all heterosexuals want or will have children and it is not a requirement for heterosexuals.


MY ANSWER

1. If having children should truly have NOTHING to do with marriage because of it not being a requirement for heterosexuals, than why does the potential affect of adult siblings procreating play any factor in their 'right' to marry?



MY SOLUTION

take SEX out of the equation.
It is already an EXPECTATION of marriage so

either create another contract with all the same expectations EXCEPT The sexual one,, call it a civil union, dont give any regard to what the sexual activity or result of such activity might be with those in such a union, and allow ANY adults wishing to share a life for any reason the right to be joined in a civil union

or

change the definition of MARRIAGE to include any consenting adults, regardless of sexual activity or potential consequence


if the word is so important, keep it

but take away the sexual expectation and stick to the controversial 'rights' of married couples,,,,,that so many feel they are being restricted from

really> what happens if all heterosexual sex stops?

Do you really think that's going to happen? Of course not. But, sex is not mandatory for every single person. And many people who have sex are doing so for pleasure.

Again, these are all choices we make.

I was thinking 'within a few decades'. It isn't just a matter of doing a word substitution in a document. For the secretary it is, but not for the legislative body. This is a much larger undertaking than you seem to allow for.



Can you be more specific?





I'm not sure what your point is. I thought the purpose of changing the law to treat civil unions as the law currently treats marriage is to protect the rights of gays in lifelong partnership while defining marriage based on gender. In which case, we need to do this all over the country for this to make sense. I'd wager that most towns over 500-1,000 people have at least one gay couple who would like to get married.



I thought all of the legally relevant details were supposed to be the same?



Oh, no no no, its super easy to DRAFT - its just super hard to actually get all of the legislative bodies to actually DO IT the way we are describing.

It seems to me that the religious community has built up an thorough, logical-seeming (but ultimately illogical) justifications for being against gay marriage, which hang on such vital concerns as 'the survival of the human race'.

of course its INDIVIDUALLY a choice

having sex at all is a CHOICE

however, we need people to choose heterosexual sex in order for us to continue PROCREATING life

because we NEED That activity, it makes sense to encourage a fidelity and commitment

Im against government putting a stamp of EXPECTATION on HOMOSEXUAL SEX...

Im not against gay people sharing lives or having their lives 'validated' by the government many claim they wish would stay out of their bedrooms

Im just saying, if the government validates their relationship in such a way, let them do exactly that

STAY OUT OF THE BEDROOM and not include ANY SEXUAL EXPECTATION in that validation

Sure, but it's still not mandatory for each person.

Fidelity and commitment are choices that people make, no matter their gender or the gender of their partners.

When marriage originated, was it perceived to be instituted by deity, or was it perceived to be strictly a civil institution?

Your answer to the above question will influence your opinion about same-gender marriage.

If you believe that marriage was instituted by deity, then your belief implies that deity provides the definition of marriage.

If you believe that marriage is strictly a civil institution, then your belief implies that the civil government provides the definition of marriage.

of course they are,, SEX IS A CHOICE, whether we choose to have it anally, orally, or vaginally

it is a CHOICE

the choice to have it vaginally is one that keeps the race surviving though and rightfully holds a uniquely significant purpose and consequence that has been aknowledged in the contract of 'marriage' which expects such sexual activity to be committed and faithful,,,,

1 John 2:15-17 ESV / 5 helpful votes

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.



the flesh will win, the flesh has growing control over our lives, our laws, and our choices

its an inevitable reality, but that doesnt mean everyone will have to be agreeable to it or cooperative with it,,,

It pains me to say this, but quoting the New Testament isn't much help when you are addressing an audience that does not accept the New Testament as being a valid book about morality.

What I think is most confusing has been the various changes in direction that seem to be misdirecting the debate. First, a link to a website contained part of the argument, but it turns out that no one really reviewed the link (except me). So others were confused about the arguments being set out and rightfully so because, as I pointed out, the article was a biased opinionated piece which even you failed to critically evaluate which is why others missed what you were trying to argue.

Then the debate turned and suddenly homosexual marriage offered nothing of social significance on any front because they could not reproduce. Unfortunately, that argument was disconnected from reality because homosexuals can reproduce at the same rate as the general heterosexual population. But they offer something of great significance, they offer to adopt and love children which, to most poeple, would seem like a rather significant social contribution.

Then the debate become about sex. The only way to enforce this illogical train of thought was to introduce a totally new concept to the discussion, namely other people, like family who adopt or become legal guardians of other family members (grandparent raising grandchildren, or older siblings taking responsibility for younger ones)but those situations are not the same in that the law does provide protections for those legal situation. So the only other avenue is to bring incestuous relationships into the debate. But we are not talking about such relationships, that is different topic altogether.

Finally we are back to sex, the issue is all about sex but NOW it's about making sure that heterosexual sex continues to be supported by the government so that the nation will never lack for a large population. The world is on population overload, it seems heterosexuals are quite prolific, with or without marriage.

We have also put to rest the idea that the welfare of children is of greatest concern, because you agree that the civil unions, you would support,provide the strong foundation that developing children will benefit from, so ss-sex parenting is not a problem.

What we are left with is constant refernce to an abhorance of certain physical expressions of love and the following quote:

.

If you think but do not speak an abomination, must you repent? If you support a civil union denying that "desires of the flesh" are bound to surface as expressions of love are you not reinforcing an abomination (according to your beliefs)?

Would it not be more truthful to your faith to simply say that your faith forbids you from being complicit in allowing 'others' to sin, even if that means you must discriminate against others to avoid being complicit in thier sins? At least that is more consistent and more defensible becasue your reasons are ready made, just pick a chapter and verse.

I don't have any fears about the human race becoming extinct..I worry about people having more children than they can really "afford." (Physically and emotionally.)

yeah, I do too

that wasnt really my point,,,but apparently my point is not being made well enough

we have no reason to not ENCOURAGE heterosexual activity being we need it to exist

that was my point

we have no reason, on the otherhand , to ENCOURAGE homosexual activity being there is no such societal impact that comes from such activity,,,